ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Entrepreneurship

Richard Fuller: What steps the Government are taking with local enterprise partnerships to promote entrepreneurship in towns and communities across the UK.

Greg Clark: Local enterprise partnerships, independently and through city deals, promote entrepreneurship in a variety of ways, including by providing help and advice to small businesses, premises for start-ups and access to venture capital funds. Next month, in my hon. Friend’s area, a small business support service will begin, bringing together the local enterprise partnership, the chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the Engineering Employers Federation, to assist new and growing businesses in his area.

Richard Fuller: Successful entrepreneurs, particularly in local communities, are best placed to promote growth, jobs and prosperity. May I meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together to develop a national network of local enterprise funds to tap into communities’ sense of entrepreneurship?

Greg Clark: I would be delighted to do that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s efforts in Bedford, where I think he has brought investors together to fund start-ups and rapidly growing businesses. That is characteristic of many of the city deals that we have struck around the country. For example, in Nottingham, £40 million has been made available, jointly by the Government, Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council, as well as local investors, to help invest in Nottingham businesses. I commend that to colleagues across the House.

Ian Lucas: The most consistent barrier to entrepreneurship in my constituency is the lack of available finance from banks. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that today’s announcement by Barclays—of further bonus finance available to its staff—tells us that the Government do not get that it is necessary for them to pressure the banks to start lending in order to encourage entrepreneurship?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows that the funding for lending scheme, which the Government and the Bank of England have promoted, has explicitly concentrated on getting lending going to small businesses, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said, bank lending is not the only source of finance needed. The venture capital funds established under our city deals are an important and welcome way in which small businesses can benefit from the finance they need to expand.

City Deals

Nadhim Zahawi: What assessment he has made of how city deals are working.

Greg Clark: We have now agreed 19 city deals, and although they are for the long term, those in the first wave are already making a significant difference. For example, in Birmingham, more than 2,000 new apprenticeships have been provided. In Newcastle, infrastructure works are nearly complete on the Science Central development on what was previously derelict land. In Manchester, work will shortly begin on the airport relief road, and Liverpool is hosting the international business festival in June and July, which I know the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) will be supporting and to which I will ensure all colleagues receive an invitation.

Nadhim Zahawi: Will the Minister consider spreading the excellent city deal initiative to all parts of the country?

Greg Clark: I can confirm that there is in fact a city deal covering my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, which is focused on making the most of the opportunities in the supply chain for advanced manufacturing. Furthermore, through the available local growth funds, the principle of city deals is being established across the whole of England, and I am looking forward to visiting each LEP to conduct negotiations.

Gisela Stuart: Is the Minister’s long-term vision that the various city deals will in essence mesh together to become a city region deal and therefore be spread more comprehensively across the regions?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady, who takes a great interest in these matters, makes a good point. In the past few days, I have met in Birmingham all the LEPs and local authorities from across the west midlands area precisely to ensure that their individual city and growth deals reinforce each other, so that the west midlands’ strong advantages, especially in advanced manufacturing, can be combined.

Andrew Turner: What freedoms are granted to rural areas to match the Heseltine review and the city deals being given to urban areas?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend, speaking for the Isle of Wight, makes an important point. In our response to the Heseltine review, we have extended the principle of
	city deals to rural areas, including the Isle of Wight, so that the same financial flexibilities and powers will be available, as they have been to cities.

David Wright: In towns such as Telford, the Government still own a large portion of land through the Homes and Communities Agency structure. Would the Minister be willing to meet councillors and officials from Telford and Wrekin council to consider how we could use that land in a city deal-type partnership to promote more growth and development?

Greg Clark: I have already done that. I went to Telford last week to have precisely the conversations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I was impressed with the conversations that took place. [Interruption.] He is quite right that he should have been informed. I hope he was, but if he was not, I apologise for the discourtesy. However, I met his council leader. I was impressed with the work going on there, and I look forward to a future visit, to which the hon. Gentleman will certainly be invited.

Anne McIntosh: Forgive my naivety, but I understood that city deals were a creation of the previous Government, and that, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), they channelled transport and economic development funds into cities and other urban areas and away from rural areas.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is not right about that. City deals are not an invention of the last Government; they were minted by this Government. In fact, we are told, the Labour leader of Manchester city council, Sir Richard Leese, believes that
	“there has been more progress towards the core cities taking control of their own destiny in three years of the coalition than during 13 years of Labour.”

Colombia

Robert Flello: What discussions he had with human rights organisations, trade unions and opposition movements during his recent visit to Colombia; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Clegg: I met the deputy director of the national victims unit, Iris Marin, as well as representatives of displaced groups and other victims of the armed conflict who sit on the round table. I also met representatives of a number of non-governmental organisations who work on human rights issues, including members of a Colombian human rights lawyers’ collective and members of Peace Brigades International, a British NGO which is active in Colombia. In addition, of course, I discussed directly with President Santos the importance of protecting human rights defenders and trade unionists.

Robert Flello: Last summer, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	“Britain must not step back from its historical commitment to human rights for the sake of commercial expediency.”
	While he was in Colombia, an eight-month-old baby was shot dead as a result of indiscriminate army gunfire.
	Congressman Ivan Cepeda, Carlos Lozano and many others received appalling death threats, and the Colombian Defence Secretary continued to brand them as terrorists. Colombia’s human rights record is appalling. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister now turning a blind eye for the purpose of “commercial expediency”?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not agree with the characterisation of what we are trying to do in our relationship with Colombia. Colombia is a society traumatised by horrific violence, and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are still some instances of terrible abuses and violence. It seems to me that, in the long run, the only way in which the country can find its feet and have a proper, law-abiding system in which human rights are protected is through peace and non-violence throughout the country.
	It is important for us to support the negotiations between President Santos and the FARC terrorist group so that we can try to establish peace for the people of Colombia. In the meantime, we are very unambiguous in what we say and do in supporting human rights activists in the country—including NGO activists—and, indeed, in supporting the Government of Colombia in ensuring that human rights are promoted.

Mark Durkan: Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group on human rights to discuss issues such as land rights, human rights and the health of the peace process, on which he will have been able to reflect during his visit?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I am keen to look constantly at ways in which we can collectively reinforce our messages on human rights in troubled parts of the world such as Colombia, but we know from peace processes of our own that, in the long run, the best way of guaranteeing human rights and the rule of law is to entrench peace, and to ensure that violence subsides and is then stopped altogether. That is what we are doing in our work with President Santos’s Government. We are also ensuring that the free trade agreements into which the European Union has entered with Colombia contain very clear human rights provisions, to be enshrined in 54 specific measures that the Colombian Government need to introduce in order to protect human rights under the terms of the free trade agreement.

Sadiq Khan: How much more authority and influence does the Deputy Prime Minister think that a future Deputy Prime Minister would have when raising the issue of human rights in a country that he or she visited if we had abolished our human rights legislation and replaced it with a diluted Bill of Rights, or had withdrawn from the European convention on human rights?

Nicholas Clegg: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is one of the reasons why I am so staunchly opposed to diluting the human rights that British citizens enjoy under British and European law. It is very difficult to urge—as we do—the Governments of countries such as Colombia to aspire to the highest standards of human rights if we do not do so ourselves, as a country.

Cheshire East: Business Growth

Fiona Bruce: What support the Government are giving to business growth opportunities in Cheshire East through the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership.

Greg Clark: I look forward to meeting members of the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership to provide feedback on its proposed bid for access to the local growth fund. The sum of £2 billion has been taken from Whitehall Departments to fund local projects that can drive growth. I urge my hon. Friend, and all Members, to work with their local enterprise partnerships and help to shape their bids during the weeks ahead.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Minister agree that, in a county such as Cheshire, one priority should be to support innovative approaches to strengthening our rural economy? An example is the Cheshire Fresh agricultural hub at Middlewich, which will provide up to 700 jobs and promote best practice, young enterprise, training, inward investment and food security.

Greg Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that that project features in the draft proposals from her local enterprise partnership, and I hope that when she meets representatives of her LEP, she will encourage them to ensure that it has the priority that she rightly thinks should be attached to it.

Helen Jones: Despite the fact that huge amounts of public money are being channelled through local enterprise partnerships, the Government have admitted that they carry out no formal assessment of their effectiveness. What is the Minister going to do to make these partnerships more accountable, so that the people in Warrington can get a better deal from the Cheshire and Warrington LEP?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady can play a role in that. She can hold her local enterprise partnership to account and scrutinise its proposals. Every LEP in England will be putting forward a bid for funds from the £2 billion that I have mentioned, and I have made it clear to them that they should consult and involve their Members of Parliament. I hope that she will take up that invitation.

Electoral Register

Clive Efford: What steps the Government plan to take to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.

Greg Clark: Individual electoral registration will help to enhance the accuracy of the register and, from June, applications will be verified against Government records. We will also use data matching to ensure the completeness of the register during the transition to the new system, by confirming the vast majority of electors. Moreover, five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain will be sharing £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising registration. The introduction of online registration will improve accessibility for groups such as overseas voters and home movers.

Clive Efford: The Minister knows that there is widespread concern about the fall in the number of people on the electoral register as a result of individual electoral registration. Just how many people would have to disappear from the list before the Government pulled the plug on the project?

Greg Clark: Everyone who has scrutinised this matter knows that every effort is being made to ensure a smooth transition. For example, the existing register will follow into the period of the next general election campaign. Through the funding that we have made available for the year ahead to every local authority in the country, including £26,000 for Greenwich, to promote people staying on the register, there is every opportunity to increase the level of registration. That is one of the features of the new exercise.

David Ward: Does the Minister agree that we could improve the completeness of the register by replicating the Northern Ireland initiative of working with local authorities in schools to register young people in schools?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is one of the purposes of the funding that we have made available. I participated in a very good exercise organised by a group of young people called Bite the Ballot to encourage registration in my constituency. It was a great success. I can tell my hon. Friend that £48,000 has been provided to the electoral registration officer in Bradford precisely for that kind of activity.

Natascha Engel: Almost half of all 16 and 17-year-olds are missing from the electoral register. If they are not on the register, they cannot vote when they turn 18. What additional support is the Minister making available to help local authorities to get young people on to the register?

Greg Clark: As I have just said, £4.2 million has been made available across the country, the majority of which has gone to the electoral registration officers in local authorities, who know their area best. They have been invited to concentrate on the areas of under-registration, which have historically included schools. There are good examples of lessons and materials that can be used in schools that have a demonstrated record of achievement in enthusing young people and getting them to register, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to do the same in Derbyshire.

David Nuttall: The Minister is clearly doing a good job of ensuring that the register is accurate, but may I urge him to check that the people who turn up to vote are actually the people on the register?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point about accuracy. The duties of electoral registration officers involve ensuring accuracy as well as completeness. The transition to individual electoral registration is precisely to ensure that the identity of people on the register can be confirmed, which does not happen at the moment. That will be a major step forward for the security of our electoral system.

Nigel Dodds: In Northern Ireland, which has been mentioned, we have individual registration but big problems with registration remain, particularly among young people and in socially deprived areas. Does the Minister not agree that, as well as resources, we need a much more proactive, outgoing approach on the part of registration officers? I find that unless they are pushed they often sit back and do not take a proactive approach.

Greg Clark: The lessons that were to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland have been learned. For example, the canvass that was not followed in Northern Ireland will be followed here in this country. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is a positive duty on electoral registration officers to ensure that the register is complete. I take that very seriously, and I know that they do.

James Gray: A unique opportunity will arise to improve the scope, depth and accuracy of the electoral register in the next couple of years as our servicemen and women return from Afghanistan and Germany. What new initiative will the Government take to ensure that when these personnel are settled in their seven super-garrisons across Britain they will be almost 100% registered to vote?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is crucial that our armed forces serving the country overseas are part of the franchise. He will know that arrangements have been put in place to make sure that the need for registration—the renewal of registration —should happen only once every five years, rather than annually, to reflect the difficulties that are sometimes experienced in registering during active service.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the Minister’s praise for the excellent organisation Bite the Ballot, whose national voter registration day last week signed up thousands of young people. Another way in which we could engage more young people would be to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to have the vote. Will he join me in welcoming tomorrow’s lobby of Parliament by the Votes at 16 campaign?

Greg Clark: I do welcome the lobby of Parliament; I met one of the young people in my constituency and he made a very articulate case for that measure. The debate is taking off. There is not agreement across the Government —across this House—that this change should take place, but I think it is very good that the debate is happening and that young people are engaged in it.

Topical Questions

Roger Williams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Roger Williams: Will the Deputy Prime Minister update us on introducing legislation to implement the Silk commission recommendations, which have all-party support in the National Assembly for Wales but seem to lack wholehearted support from Her Majesty’s Opposition in Westminster?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree with my hon. Friend that Opposition Members have a very ambivalent attitude towards further devolution to Wales, but on the Government Benches we are unambiguous in our support for following up the Silk commission and translating it into legislation. That is why we published the draft Bill, which is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee right now. I cannot pre-empt the Queen’s Speech, but I hope he will be in no doubt about our determination to translate the Silk report into action.

Harriet Harman: The whole House will be concerned about the impact of the severe floods on those living and working in the Somerset levels and in the Thames valley. It is hard to imagine the distress at seeing one’s home wrecked by flood water, but that is the situation facing so many families today. The armed forces, fire and rescue services, the police, local council workers and Environment Agency staff are all doing a heroic job in the stricken areas, often in difficult and dangerous conditions, and they deserve our respect and our thanks for that. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the response to the floods?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that we should all join together to pay tribute to everybody who is working so hard around the clock. I was in the Somerset levels on Sunday night and yesterday morning, and, in addition to the emergency services, all the people in the gold command, the local authorities and the volunteers, who have gone several days without sleeping properly, are helping their families, neighbours and friends. It really is an extremely impressive collective effort. The bad weather is still with us. The Met Office is keeping us updated, as she knows. We are holding a series of Cobra meetings on an ongoing basis to monitor the situation. We are working with local authorities, the Environment Agency and all the emergency services to put contingency measures in place where we think threats might arise and, of course, to do our best to deal with the rising water in all the places it has affected, particularly the Thames valley and the Somerset levels.

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. The absolute priority for everyone now must be a total focus on working together to help people hit by the floods and those who are still threatened. People will still face huge challenges and great anxiety about the future even after the floodwater recedes. They will have to get their homes straight, their farms and businesses back on track and rebuild their livelihoods and communities. We all know how impossible it can be, even at the best of times, wrestling with compensation schemes and dealing with insurance companies. Will he assure the House that the Government are working on that now? Will they bring together the insurance companies and co-ordinate all the Government compensation processes
	so that once the water subsides and the TV cameras move on, people are not left in the lurch and get the ongoing help they need?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Lady—I am sure that everyone does from all parts of the House—that that is precisely what we should be doing. She may know that we have already reached an agreement with the insurance industry on a long-term approach to insuring properties that are susceptible to flooding, and we can now move forward on that. She will know that we have increased the coverage under the Bellwin formula in terms of the money provided to councils that have had to spend more of their own resources to deal with this terrible emergency. Yes, of course we will need to work with the insurance industry, businesses, the farming community and local authorities to ensure that proper coverage and compensation is provided.

Mark Pritchard: I know the Deputy Prime Minister respects the Court in Strasbourg, but I also know that he respects the courts and judges in this country. Therefore does he agree with Lord Justice Laws who recently said that treating Strasbourg decisions as authoritative represents a wrong turning in British law?

Nicholas Clegg: It is absolutely essential that we as a country always abide by the law and by our international legal commitments. The hon. Gentleman will know that an independent commission looked into the case for a UK Bill of Rights, of which he is a great advocate, and provided its final report in December 2012. It concluded that this was not the right time to change the legal framework that governs the application of human rights in this country and the translation of the European convention, not least because of the knock-on effect on the devolved judicial systems within the United Kingdom.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that local authorities with the highest levels of deprivation are facing unprecedented cuts. Will he assure the House that the cost of securing individual voter registration will not be at the cost of council services aimed at supporting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and will be fully met by central Government?

Nicholas Clegg: Those parts of the country where we have the highest number of under-registered populations, such as student areas, will receive more resources to do what is clearly a more resource-intensive job than in other areas. That will be reflected in the way in which the individual electoral registration system is funded.

Karen Lumley: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the target set by Worcestershire local enterprise partnership of creating 10,000 new apprenticeships by 2016? Those are real jobs and real training for local people.

Nicholas Clegg: I will certainly join her in celebrating the work of Worcestershire LEP, and indeed the LEPs, businesses and local authorities up and down
	the country that are expanding apprenticeships. As my hon. Friend knows, notwithstanding all the very difficult costs and savings we have had to make in this coalition Government to clear up the mess we inherited from the Labour party, we have none the less increased the number of apprenticeships across the country to unprecedented levels. We will roll out 250,000 more apprenticeships during this Parliament than were planned by the Labour party when it was in office.

Michael McCann: Speaking of messes, the Deputy Prime Minister went on LBC to defend the handling of the Royal Mail sale by saying that the Business Secretary is not a share price expert. Will he now concede to this House that the Royal Mail was sold off too cheaply?

Nicholas Clegg: The point I was making then, and that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has also made, is that the price was set following independent advice provided to him and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I do not think that anybody here should be seeking to second guess the advice that was received. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in hoping that the Royal Mail will continue to be a successful company, providing universal coverage of postal deliveries across the country.

Graham Evans: Last Friday, I held an export fair with UK Trade & Investment at Sci-Tech’s enterprise zone in my constituency to encourage business and entrepreneurs to look at expanding into the export trade. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps the Government have taken to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to work with local enterprise partnerships, enterprise zones and UKTI to promote growth and entrepreneurship?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly want to welcome what the hon. Gentleman is doing with his local LEP and others. He is right that there are dangers in too much duplication—too many Government and non-governmental bodies, quangos and other arm’s length bodies all aiming at the same objective. That is why the Government have encouraged local authorities and LEPs to work together to create growth hubs in which there is a single port of call for businesses that want to access the assistance they need to improve exports for businesses in the local area.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that London and the south-east are increasingly powerful compared with regional cities? Does he agree with Boris Johnson’s campaign, which would allow London to retain an even greater share of taxes down in London and the south?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly agree with the characterisation that over-centralisation, both economically and politically, is a problem that has blighted our country for a very, very long time, which is why I would highlight the importance of city deals—the most radical cutting of the purse strings that have controlled the way in which cities in the north of England and elsewhere behave by the Treasury. It is a radical step in decentralisation,
	as is the localising of business rates and the investment in HS2 to make sure that the north prospers in future just as much as the south.

Andrew Stunell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electoral conduct report by the all-party group against anti-Semitism has provided useful recommendations on how we can conduct our election campaigns vigorously, but without grossly discriminatory campaigning? Will he agree to meet a deputation from that panel to discuss its recommendations?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly thank my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and others for their report, which is extremely good. We have looked closely at the recommendations, and I wrote to the Chair recently with my views both as a party leader and on behalf of the Government on how we can respond to them. Quite a lot of the recommendations, funnily enough, are enshrined in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, especially on non-party campaigning. A number of other recommendations can be dealt with only with proper cross-party consensus, with political parties taking action as political parties, and I very much hope that we will all do that.

Kevin Brennan: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the comments of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor, who said on Monday that
	“Nick Clegg complains quite often that Danny Alexander has gone native in the Treasury. I think there is some truth in the fact that he has gone native in the Treasury.”
	He said:
	“The relationship between George and Danny Alexander is very, very good.”
	The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of Stockholm syndrome, in which captives increasingly empathise with their captives. What is he going to do to de-programme “the Treasury one”?

Nicholas Clegg: I have just seen those quotes from the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)—I am not sure if he is in the Chamber—who claims that he is extremely close to the Chancellor, knows his mind and that he is his “wingman”. He is as good a wing man as Icarus was in flying off on his own wings, judging by his comments. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is doing an outstanding job on behalf of the Government and the Liberal Democrats. Only last week he said that further cuts for the wealthiest in society would happen over his dead body. That and so many other examples show that his Liberal Democrat heart is exactly where it should be.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern that 75% of the British people tell pollsters that they think that human rights are a charter for criminals and the undeserving? Is it not time that we introduced a British Bill of Rights with constitutional reform that gives the final say back to the Supreme Court?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, when this was looked at very carefully by a number of eminent experts they concluded in December 2012 that it would not be right to undo or unwind a lot of the protections that we all enjoy under existing human rights law, and that a British Bill of Rights would run the risk of unpicking many of the protections enjoyed across the United Kingdom, given the fact that we have a fairly devolved legal system. More generally, of course, this sometimes poses difficult problems for the House and we have to wrestle with difficult issues, but it is worth reminding people that these are human rights for British citizens, and are already enshrined in British law.

Robert Flello: When the Deputy Prime Minister was getting close to President Santos, did he mention the names Huber Ballesteros, Francisco Toloza, David Ravelo, and did he inquire when those political prisoners might be released from incarceration in Colombian prisons?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in answer to an earlier question, of course I discussed the need to improve human rights in Colombia. As he knows, President Santos is committed to embarking on a new human rights initiative during the course of this year. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ask the simple question: if we want to protect human rights abroad as much as we do here—I think we share that view—surely one of the best ways to do that is to work hard with other Governments, including President Santos’s Government, to create peace. If there is constant violence, it is very difficult to protect human rights.

Dan Byles: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal initiative could see tens of millions of pounds invested locally, which would build on the recent successes that we have seen in the automotive supply chain industry and manufacturing industry, creating jobs and boosting investment?

Nicholas Clegg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent support that he has given to the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, which we were able finally to conclude. It is as a result of that deal and other initiatives that we will be able to support more than 15,000 new jobs by 2025 and unlock £91 million of public and private sector investment—yet another example of economic decentralisation that will help to create jobs throughout the country.

Jenny Chapman: In order to serve on a jury, one needs to be on the electoral register. Are the Government increasing the maximum age for jurors from 70 to 75 to make up the numbers of all those young people who will no longer be eligible to serve?

Nicholas Clegg: The ambition is to increase the number of young people who are registered. A number of Members have already mentioned the work of Bite the Ballot and other organisations that are campaigning hard to do that. If we get individual voter registration right, as I hope we will—which was first
	proposed by the Labour Government, not the coalition Government—levels of registration in under-registered populations should increase rather than decrease.

Stephen Metcalfe: As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, last Wednesday was Bite the Ballot national voter registration day, designed to engage with the 4 million young people who are missing from our register. What actions will he take to engage those people and get them registered, such as perhaps emulating the schools initiative in Northern Ireland?

Nicholas Clegg: As was said earlier, we announced last week that five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain will be sharing £4.2 million-worth of new resources to maximise registration. As my hon. Friend mentioned schools, it is worth remembering that next September a new citizenship programme will be taught that stipulates that pupils in schools should learn about parliamentary democracy and citizenship more widely. That is another opportunity to raise the profile of the importance of getting young people registered on the electoral roll.

Lisa Nandy: The Deputy Prime Minister promised this week that there will be no politicisation of Ofsted, so will he take this opportunity to restore some of the public confidence that has been lost in recent days and give the House an assurance that the major Conservative party donor, Theodore Agnew, will not be appointed as chair of Ofsted, which the Education Secretary is reportedly trying to achieve?

Nicholas Clegg: I can certainly reassure the hon. Lady and the House that any appointments to Ofsted, or indeed any other important public bodies, will conform to the code for the appointment to public bodies, and that the panel that is being established to put forward candidates for that new Ofsted position will be entirely independent and will be asked to propose candidates based only on merit. There will be no political interference in the creation of the short-list of candidates whatsoever.

Gordon Birtwistle: Last week, I visited Wellfield school in my constituency, an excellent junior school that fully supports the Government’s plans for free school meals. Its problem is that it does not have a facility within the school to provide those meals. It has spoken to the county council and the diocese, but it is getting nowhere with them. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, or ask his Education Secretary to meet me, to try to resolve the problem before the plans are introduced in September?

Nicholas Clegg: I will certainly ask a Minister in the Department for Education to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. As he knows, we have set aside £1 billion in revenue funding to deliver that next September so that all young children in the first three years of primary school get a healthy meal at lunch time, which raises educational standards and helps close the attainment gap, as study after study have shown. In addition—this addresses his point—we have set aside £150 million in capital investment to improve kitchen and dining facilities for schools that do not have them
	and nearly £10 million to fund an implementation support service. I think that will be a great progressive step towards helping children who do not get a healthy meal get one and to help their education.

Kate Green: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are as likely to vote as the population as a whole if they are registered, but registration rates are much lower among certain ethnic minority communities. Can the Deputy Prime Minister say what is being done specifically to encourage people from ethnic minority backgrounds to vote, particularly under individual voter registration?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, I can. The £4.5 million that I mentioned earlier was allocated only a few days ago to all local authorities and to a number of organisations. Their work will be tested against the objective of helping black and minority ethnic groups, students and others who are under-represented on the register be more fully represented on it. That is what that money and that work is for, and I hope that it will be successful.

Simon Burns: What specific measures, rather than general ones, have been put in place to make it easier, quicker and cheaper to remove people from the electoral register who legally should not be on it?

Nicholas Clegg: I think that awareness of the integrity of the register has increased significantly. The work that I have already alluded to, and indeed the introduction of individual voter registration, is all about improving the integrity of the register to ensure that those who should not be on it are not on it. Ultimately, that is what individual voter registration is all about—bearing down on fraud and improving the integrity of the register.

Iain McKenzie: In Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds are about to vote for the first time this year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that there is inconsistency in the voting age across the UK and, if so, what does he intend to do to address it?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am an advocate of votes at 16. People can do all sorts of things at age 16 or 17, such as paying taxes and serving in the armed forces, but they cannot vote. That is why my party will remain a staunch advocate of votes at 16. As my hon. Friend said earlier, we have not agreed that across the coalition, but I hope that it will happen eventually.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the level of immigration into this country is too high, too low or about right?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think that there is a magical number. I think that the key to encouraging public confidence in the immigration system is ensuring that it is tough where it needs to be—stamping out abuse, cutting out the loopholes, ensuring that illegal immigration is diminishing and counting people in as well as out, which is why I am so keen to reintroduce the exit checks that previous Governments removed—but
	at the same time remaining open for business, because we are nothing as an economy if we are not open to the rest of the world.

Andrew Gwynne: The Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric on electoral registration might carry a bit more weight if his own local council followed his advice. Is he aware that in Stockport, in the wards that I represent, electoral registration is 20% below the level in the Tameside wards? What is he going to do to ensure that Liberal Democrat Stockport gets its act together?

Nicholas Clegg: I can see how angry the hon. Gentleman is about that—[Interruption.] As he should be, as Opposition Front Benchers say portentously from a sedentary position. He should welcome the £4.5 million that we recently allocated to the five organisations working nationally and to all local authorities precisely to address the issue he highlights.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Child Abuse

David Hanson: How many local authorities have signed up to the information-sharing protocol for cases of child abuse launched in November 2013 by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mary Glindon: How many local authorities have signed up to the information-sharing protocol for cases of child abuse launched in November 2013 by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oliver Heald: The national protocol came into force on 1 January this year. The aim is for all parties to sign a local protocol as soon as possible. The Crown Prosecution Service intends to carry out a survey of all CPS areas to monitor progress.

David Hanson: If the voluntary approach does not produce the goods that the Minister and the Opposition wish to see, will he consider making it compulsory for local authorities to sign such protocols, given the importance of the issue? In particular, will he discuss it in my area with the National Assembly for Wales?

Oliver Heald: It is very important that local protocols should be signed so that there is a clear, seamless process and when an investigation starts the information is shared with the other authorities. A draft protocol has now been sent to contacts in all the local authorities in the right hon. Gentleman’s area, and discussions are continuing. It is thought that it will be possible to have the protocol signed by the middle of March.

Mary Glindon: Given that openness and information sharing are key to prosecuting these cases, what assurance can the Solicitor-General give that the Government will resist calls to introduce suspect anonymity in cases of historical child abuse and rape?

Oliver Heald: On the subject of information sharing, tomorrow the judges in Newcastle are meeting all the local authorities to try to agree a way forward. There are certainly no current plans to change the anonymity rules. If the hon. Lady wants to discuss this with me, I would be more than happy to do so.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend knows how important information sharing is in this very sensitive area. He is no doubt aware of the successful conviction of the former head teacher of Caldicott preparatory school the week before last in my constituency. Will he join me in paying tribute to Mr Tom Perry, who revealed his own historical child abuse to enable this prosecution to go forward? What encouragement can he give to Mr Perry and his colleagues as regards the Government looking favourably on mandatory reporting for regulated activities, which could help to protect more of our children in future?

Oliver Heald: This was an horrendous case, and, like my right hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Tom Perry for his courage. She is absolutely right about information sharing and, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), it is important to have these local protocols in place so that information is shared expeditiously from the very beginning. We believe that that will happen; certainly, very good progress is being made. We will look at the results of the survey and at that point we will be able to see where we stand.

David Winnick: On child abuse, is any progress being made on prosecutions for female genital mutilation? Is the Solicitor-General aware of the disappointment felt by so many people all round the country that so far it seems that this issue is not being taken seriously enough? Can we expect prosecutions in the near future?

Oliver Heald: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because this is a very important issue. Ministers met non-governmental organisations last week to discuss how to make progress. A number of things are happening. He will know that the Crown Prosecution Service is currently reviewing 10 cases, and it is very much hoped that it will be possible to ground a prosecution. However, the key thing is that one does need evidence, so it is very important that the information gathering for the sort of evidence that is needed for a successful prosecution is found and pursued. Every effort is being made, and I have recently visited all the units concerned.

Emily Thornberry: Child abuse and rape prosecutions are falling because the agencies are not working together. I have uncovered the fact that local authorities are not disclosing information to police and prosecutors and the fact that the police are referring fewer and fewer cases to prosecutors. We now need to know what the Solicitor-General and his brother and sister Ministers are going to do to show some leadership on this issue. Are the Government doing nothing about it because violence against women and girls is not a priority for them, or because the 27% cuts to the CPS and the loss of a quarter of its lawyers mean that the Solicitor-General is resigned to the idea that more and more cases are going to be dropped?

Oliver Heald: It is sad to hear the hon. Lady traduce the Crown Prosecution Service in that way. The fact is that we have the highest ever level of conviction rates for rape, for domestic violence and for child abuse, and the people who are prosecuting these cases are doing an excellent job. She knows that we are investigating fully, through a six-point plan, why referrals are falling in some parts of the country, but the idea that the Crown Prosecution Service can be criticised when it is doing the best it has ever done in terms of conviction rates is quite wrong.

Shared Legal Service

Jake Berry: What recent discussions he has had with the Treasury Solicitor on the development of a shared legal service. [R]

Dominic Grieve: I have regular discussions with the Treasury Solicitor, Sir Paul Jenkins, on matters of mutual interest. Sir Paul is the architect of the shared legal service, which has led to a much improved organisation and streamlining of the Government legal service. I trust that that will continue. Sir Paul has been a Government lawyer for 35 years. He will retire at the end of the month and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his major contribution to this issue, for his years of service to the Government legal service and, indeed, for helping the good governance of our country.

Jake Berry: I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will my right hon. and learned Friend set out what benefits will be gained from sharing legal services across Government Departments?

Dominic Grieve: Sharing legal services brings considerable benefits in greater flexibility and reliance; more efficient deployment of legal resources, including specialist expertise; and more opportunities for savings and improved knowledge sharing. It also provides a more coherent legal service for Government as a whole and good career development opportunities for lawyers, and it improves the legal support to individual Departments.

Bob Neill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one area of expertise that could be improved by shared legal service is that of awareness of and consistent access to expertise in forms of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, which should be available to all Government Departments?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the benefit of bringing the legal advisers from different Departments into one organisation. There is now a single board that groups those people together in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, and I am confident it can deliver savings, lower charging costs for Departments—we have already seen that—and greater efficiency and expertise in-house.

Stolen Assets (Repatriation)

Mark Menzies: What steps the Government are taking to ensure the repatriation of stolen assets to emerging democracies in the middle east and north Africa.

Dominic Grieve: In September 2012, the Prime Minister established a taskforce to speed up our efforts to return stolen assets to the people of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Metropolitan Police Service is currently investigating a number of specific cases alongside its Egyptian counterparts. At international level, we used our G8 presidency last year to promote that agenda. That included co-hosting an international conference in Marrakesh on asset recovery last October, which I attended.

Mark Menzies: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this Government have been at the forefront of helping with the issue, particularly with regard to returning stolen assets to Egypt, and that that was key at the Arab Forum on asset recovery?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I can confirm that we have been at the forefront of asset recovery efforts. A number of priority cases have been identified with the Egyptian authorities. UK investigators have opened domestic money laundering investigations into individuals with significant assets in the UK and they are in daily contact with their Egyptian counterparts. I hope that that will improve with some secondments to Egypt shortly.
	The Arab Forum on asset recovery allowed us an opportunity to have an overall discussion about the issue. One of the difficulties is a lack of understanding in some countries about the due process of law that has to be gone through in order for recovery to take place. I hope, therefore, that the conference facilitated a greater understanding of that.

Andrew Gwynne: A National Audit Office report on the proceeds of crime shows that, as a result of poor co-ordination and a lack of leadership, out of every £100 generated in the criminal economy, as much as £99.64 is retained by the perpetrator. What is the Attorney-General doing to address those findings so that victims in north African and middle eastern emerging democracies can get their—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are fully seized of the purport of the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry at just about the same time as he has become seized himself.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman shows some ingenuity in linking his question to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). I assure the hon. Gentleman that asset recovery is given a high priority and that a taskforce within Government is looking at how we can improve it overall. There are a number of interesting challenges, which go back long before this Government came into office. For example, there is a mismatch between the amounts ordered to be seized and the actual realisable amounts and, in some cases, the orders made bear very little relation to the assets available. We are looking at all those things and seeking to prioritise how we can identify those assets that can best be recovered. I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that so that he can be brought up to date on our thinking.

Rehman Chishti: In relation to repatriation from north Africa and the middle east, the Attorney-General will know that, in 2012, 500 children were abducted from the United Kingdom contrary to UK court orders and taken to countries in such areas. What steps have been taken and what discussions have taken place with those countries about returning the children to the United Kingdom?

Dominic Grieve: This matter does not fall within my departmental responsibility, and it would be best for my hon. Friend to raise that with the Ministry of Justice. I accept that there are areas of real difficulty in respect of children who are abducted, but that complex issue above all involves international co-operation and respect for the orders made by family courts in other countries.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Attorney-General have any estimate of the amount of stolen assets that might be in this country?

Dominic Grieve: It is probably foolish to engage in speculation about precise figures, but I will simply say that it is recognised that there are likely to be substantial sums in this country.

Mr Speaker: I think we will take that as a no.

Domestic Homicide

Priti Patel: What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the use of diminished responsibility defences in domestic homicide cases.

Oliver Heald: The CPS is working to strengthen its approach to domestic homicide cases, particularly where the partial defence of diminished responsibility is raised.

Priti Patel: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that domestic homicide trials where the defence is one of diminished responsibility deteriorate into character assassinations of the victim, rather than focusing on the facts of the case. Will he say what steps the CPS is taking to mitigate that issue, particularly to reduce the trauma to victims and their families?

Oliver Heald: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on homicide as a subject, and I agree with her. The Crown Prosecution Services needs to take and will take a challenging attitude in three areas. The first is unwarranted attacks on the deceased’s character. The second is the need to emphasise the context of domestic violence, which is an aggregating feature, and to bring out evidence about the true dynamics of the relationship, so that such cases are treated as cases of domestic violence. The third is that the CPS should be aware that the existence of a recognised mental condition does not necessarily mean that it amounts to an abnormality of mental functioning sufficient for grounds of diminished responsibility.

Fiona Mactaggart: The “Domestic Homicide Reviews” lessons learned paper published last year stated that the CPS was “looking to strengthen
	guidance” for prosecutors about bail applications. Has that happened, because people on bail too often go on to reoffend?

Oliver Heald: The guidance on that area is being worked on at present, but I will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady’s concern is reflected back.

Robert Buckland: The law of diminished responsibility very often depends on expert evidence from psychiatrists. In complex cases, decisions about such important offences are far too often made at the last minute. Is my hon. and learned Friend happy about existing protocols in relation to making sure that psychiatric evidence can be agreed at the earliest possible opportunity, and that the consequences of important decisions based on that evidence can be explained in ordinary English to the families of the victims?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes the very important point that the bereaved should meet the prosecutor post-charge and pre-trial. As I said a moment ago, the troubled issue of the meaning of a recognised mental condition in these circumstances should be examined in a challenging way by Crown prosecutors.

Keith Vaz: These are very serious and complex cases. Does the Solicitor-General propose to look at sentencing guidelines for cases where it is found that any of the parties involved suffers from a mental illness?

Oliver Heald: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there are guideline cases dealing with manslaughter. The judge has to have discretion because, as he will know only too well, there are cases in which the mental condition is suddenly there and an incident occurs that is totally out of character for the accused. In those cases, adequate discretion needs to be available.

Foreign Offenders (Removal)

David Wright: What recent steps he has taken to promote awareness among prosecutors of the tools available to secure the removal from the UK of low-level foreign offenders.

Dominic Grieve: The Crown Prosecution Service has worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the UK Border Force to develop joint guidance for the foreign national offender conditional caution scheme in advance of its introduction in April 2013. Prosecutors are advised that where the criteria are met, there is a strong public interest in issuing a conditional caution to foreign national offenders.

David Wright: I understand that 20 cautions were issued in the six months from April 2013 and that 13 were successful in removing the offender. What happened to the other seven?

Dominic Grieve: It is important that the hon. Gentleman understands that any decision to go down that road pre-charge is for the police to make, not for the CPS. The CPS can be consulted and after charge, when it is reviewing cases, it may identify cases that it can recommend should go down that route and have the
	charges dropped. I cannot tell him what happened to the other seven; I shall try to find out and write to him. It is desirable that the project be taken forward. It is not without difficulty: there are human rights issues, and often people say they are asylum seekers or have claimed asylum and therefore cannot be removed. That said, the fact that even that small number of people have been removed seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

Peter Bone: What happens when those foreigners have been repatriated? Are they allowed automatically to come back to this country at a later date, or are they banned from returning?

Dominic Grieve: Generally speaking, they are banned from returning to the United Kingdom, at least for a period of time. It depends on the nature of the offence: in some cases, the offence will be an immigration offence and may lead to a ban for a period of time; a serious criminal offence is likely to lead to a ban for ever.

Chris Bryant: Last week, the Government introduced a new provision in the Immigration Bill allowing the Home Secretary to remove the British citizenship of people from other countries who have been naturalised. In cases where the individual is resident in this country, what will happen to them? Will they be banished from the realm? Will they be exiled, and if so, where to?

Dominic Grieve: I think the hon. Gentleman has taken a slightly simplistic view. The measure passed by the House returns us to the status quo ante 2006, which allows for such a power to be exercised by the Home Secretary. Obviously, if that power is to be exercised it has to be exercised bearing in mind, first, whether the person may obtain another nationality, and secondly, whether they can be deported. A number of criteria can be brought into play before a decision is made on such a case.

Stewart Jackson: The cost to the taxpayer of every 1,000 prisoners kept on the prison estate is £28 million. What work has my right hon. and learned Friend done and what advice has he given the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to expedite bilateral agreements with countries such as Ireland and Poland to bring about the quick removal of foreign national offenders?

Dominic Grieve: I am not allowed to say what I do or do not advise on, but in countries such as Ireland and Poland—signatories to the European convention on human rights and fellow members of the EU—it ought to be possible by bilateral dialogue to speed up the removal of prisoners from the United Kingdom, either to serve the rest of their sentence in their country of origin, or deporting them at the end of their sentence.

Digital Working

Simon Burns: What assessment he has made of the effects of increased digital working by the Crown Prosecution Service; and what estimate he has made of the savings to the public purse as a result of that increase.

Oliver Heald: The CPS has led progress in implementing digital working with other criminal justice agencies. It is estimated that most police forces are now transferring 90% of case files electronically and that savings of £30 million a year can be achieved by 2015-16.

Simon Burns: Are the other parts of the criminal justice system being as proactive as the CPS in developing and increasing digital working?

Oliver Heald: Yes, all parts of the criminal justice system are embracing digitalisation, with Essex and Chelmsford playing a key role. Essex police lead on the development of the Athena digital police system—the largest ever collaboration on a police IT project, taking a case from report to court—and Chelmsford is piloting court wi-fi and clickshare video.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to represent the new white heat of the technological revolution.

Serious Fraud Office (Overseas Co-operation)

Clive Efford: In what ways the Serious Fraud Office co-operates with prosecutors overseas; and if he will make a statement.

Dominic Grieve: The Serious Fraud Office co-operates with prosecutors overseas during joint investigations, SFO investigations with which overseas prosecutors can assist, building capacity internationally, and executing requests for legal assistance when asked to do so by the Home Office.

Clive Efford: Can the Attorney-General say what discussions he has had with America regarding the extradition of people who may be guilty of fixing the LIBOR? Progress is lacking in prosecuting people involved in LIBOR-fixing; does this increase the likelihood of their being extradited?

Dominic Grieve: The Serious Fraud Office is in touch frequently with its United States counterparts in respect of investigations that have a transnational dimension. I will not talk about a specific case, but looking at the matter hypothetically, in such circumstances it will be decided in which jurisdiction a prosecution would best be brought. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a LIBOR investigation is progressing in this country. There are also investigations in the United States. From what I know of the matter, I am satisfied that there will be good co-operation between the two jurisdictions to ensure that any alleged criminality is brought to justice.

Law of Contempt

James Wharton: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on reform of the law of contempt.

Dominic Grieve: I met the Justice Secretary recently to discuss proposals for reforming the law of contempt. The proposals will implement
	recommendations that were made by the Law Commission and have been included in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. I strongly support the reforms, which include the creation of criminal offences for jury misconduct. If enacted, the legislation will reform the contempt law that is applicable to publication contempt, with the aim of providing greater clarity and certainty for the media and the courts about when material that is published online should be removed when proceedings are active.

James Wharton: What success has my right hon. and learned Friend had in prosecuting jurors who ignore judges’ pre-trial advice, particularly with regard to the unlawful use of social media?

Dominic Grieve: Since coming to office, the Solicitor-General, his predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), and I have successfully instituted proceedings against
	five jurors. Four of those cases involved the misuse of the internet, including using the internet to conduct research. In two of those cases, social media were used to commit the contempt. As a result of those proceedings, judicial directions to jurors have been revised and strengthened. The purpose of those prosecutions is to send out a clear message about the unacceptability of such behaviour and, thereby, to ensure that further prosecutions are not necessary. By turning it into a straightforward criminal offence, we will make quite clear the gravity of the matter, while also providing statutory defences.

Robert Halfon: rose—

Mr Speaker: We will hear very shortly from the man in the conker-coloured suit. I look forward to that, as does the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment.

Point of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first business on today’s Order Paper is entitled, “Oral Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister”. Twelve substantive questions are then listed. However, during questions, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was on his feet for most of the time. The Deputy Prime Minister answered only one question. If we were to change the rules so that we had Minister of State questions, that would be fine, but I would have thought that it is discourteous to the House if the Deputy Prime Minister does not respond to his own questions.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an ingenious parliamentarian and he has made his point in his own way. He will know that the distribution of questions among Ministers is entirely a matter for them; it is not a matter for me. I have never regarded the Deputy Prime Minister as a shy or reticent individual. I doubt that he is ever cowed into quietude by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman’s point has been registered and doubtless he will correspond with the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter. If I stretch my imagination to its limit, he might even have a cup of tea with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the matter. [Interruption.] We really are indulging in flights of fancy, I fear, but the point has been made and I am glad that the House is in good humour.

Additional Charges for Utility Bills not Paid by Direct Debit (Limits)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Halfon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit levels of additional amounts charged by utility companies on bills not paid by direct debit; and for connected purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is very simple. Energy companies should not charge people excessive amounts for the energy they use just because of how the consumer prefers to pay. Energy bills continue to rise. Gas bills have gone up by 43% since 2007. Many families are struggling to pay the high prices. To the Government’s credit, they have taken some important steps to help ease the pressure, such as forcing companies to put customers on the lowest possible tariff, providing a rebate to every domestic electricity customer, and reducing bills by £130 for 2 million of the poorest householders who are most in need.
	One month ago, a pensioner in my constituency told me that her energy company had written to her to say that she would be charged an extra £63 per year unless she started paying by direct debit. She has always paid on time. Her relative then tried to pay online, but was charged the same amount, giving the lie to the reasons given by the energy companies of there being an extra administrative charge. I spoke to the energy company concerned, which told me that it charges less than most other companies, so I looked into all energy companies across the UK. Out of 26 companies that responded, five allow their customers to pay only by direct debit, while 17 charge their customers different rates, depending on the method they use to pay. Only four companies charge their consumers the same whether they pay by direct debit or not.
	The companies involved say that they have to charge more due to increased costs, and all reasonable people would accept that there will be additional costs and genuine administrative charges if someone does not pay by direct debit. I had a meeting with the Post Office, however, which said that the administrative charges of sending out a bill should not amount to more than 19p per head. Some companies have added not 19p but as much as £390 more to the bills of those not paying by direct debit, and the average charge was around £80 more per year.
	Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that people who do not pay by direct debit tend to spend £114 more per year, and those who use a prepayment meter even more than that. Even worse, many of the companies that charge extra did not say they were adding a surcharge, but rather that they were “discounting” the bills of those who use direct debit because they incur lower costs. That is a bit like calling a mortuary a negative patients output.
	Although many people do not pay by direct debit, they are often among the most poor and vulnerable. Since starting this campaign, I have been inundated with letters from pensioners who have told me that they are hit by these extra charges. They all pay on time, but they do not like direct debit as they feel it does not give
	them control over their finances. They say that they put their money aside and do not want to get into debt by overspending. It is not just pensioners—anyone on a limited income might feel the same—and with the recent financial crisis in mind, that is exactly the sort of personal responsibility we should be encouraging. Some people do not have access to proper banking facilities and are therefore unable to take advantage of certain payment methods. Nearly 2 million households in the UK do not have access to a bank account that has an overdraft facility, and half a million of those do not even have access to a basic bank account that can accept direct payments. Those households are vulnerable and have extremely limited options over how they pay. It is wrong that they should be penalised.
	The energy companies say, first, that their charges are cost reflective, and they back up that claim by saying that it forms part of the conditions of their licence. As I have said, I have no problem with a small administrative charge to reflect the extra cost that companies face for processing a cheque, but I do not believe that the £390 charged by Spark Energy, despite my conversations with it, is in any way reflective of the cost of sending out paper bills. Although the market has since changed, it is worth noting that in 2008 Ofgem stated in a report that the annual cost to companies of a standard credit customer was just £25 higher than a direct debit customer. Even then, it expressed concerns that those charges were not proportional.
	Secondly, energy companies say that they need to charge more because of the extra cost of providing credit to customers. If something is paid for retrospectively there will, of course, be an extra cost, but many companies that charge for services retrospectively charge customers far less for not paying by direct debit than energy companies —for instance, BT charges £24 a year. Furthermore, companies should be able to meet some of these extra costs themselves, and those currently paying for their energy by direct debit often pay too much. Figures from Go Compare show that one in five accounts of energy consumers are more than £100 in credit. Energy companies sit on that money and gain significant interest from it. That does not take into account the extraordinary profits that some energy companies have been making, and I am glad that the Minister is looking into their profit margins.
	The third argument is that the difference in price is due to the discount that energy companies offer to customers who pay by direct debit. As I said, however, it is not a discount; it is a premium on the 45% of people who do not pay by direct debit.
	The fourth argument is that those who do not pay by direct debit are more of a credit risk. Depending on the company, about half of the premium of not paying by direct debit is made up of paying for bad debt. Is it just that those who always pay on time, such as the elderly constituent I mentioned, have to pay for other people who are late payers or who do not pay on time? Furthermore, this argument cannot be used for those who use prepayment meters, and therefore pay in advance.
	Finally, there is the argument that introducing a cap will result in prices increasing for everyone. I believe in competition and I welcome the fact that the Government have extended competition in the energy market. I do
	not believe that prices will increase. In fact, since Members across the House began to conduct this campaign, First Utility has announced, only last week, that it is dropping its price for people who do not pay by direct debit from £96 to £24; in essence, to my recommended £2 a month, but with no price increase elsewhere.
	In conclusion, the Bill calls for a thorough investigation by the Government and Ofgem into what has been going on; real transparency for consumers, so that consumers can understand why they are being charged so much if they do not pay by direct debit; and a cap of about £2 a month on the amount that companies can charge. I commend the Bill to the House.

Philip Davies: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for his campaigning zeal and for bringing to light another issue that has much popular support. He is renowned for such campaigns. I guess that if I am renowned for anything, which probably is not much, it is probably for sticking up for unpopular and unfashionable causes. Hence, I felt that the other side of this particular argument deserved a hearing.
	First, I want to look at what is covered in the Bill. The motion refers to utility bills, but my hon. Friend seems to have concentrated on energy companies. I do not think he believes there is an issue in relation to water companies, and he praised telecommunication companies, so I presume the Bill is about energy companies. Looking at the Monopoly board, I cannot think of any other utilities that it could apply to, if it does not apply to water and telecommunications.
	My hon. Friend’s motion refers to additional amounts charged for paying by direct debit. As I understand it, however, the difference in amounts is actually a discount for paying by direct debit, rather than an additional charge for paying by alternative methods. This is an important point, because the presumption is that if the gap were narrowed between paying by direct debit and paying by other means, that would inevitably mean that the costs would be levelled down. It is quite possible, however, that if we prevent these discounts, the cost to consumers will be levelled up and nobody will be better off. We will find that people paying by direct debit are made worse off, and I do not think that is particularly helpful to anybody.
	The reduction for paying by direct debit is lauded by many people, including the regulator Ofgem, as well as consumer rights champions, such as Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com and Which?, which states:
	“The cheapest way to pay for energy is almost always monthly direct debit, as most energy companies offer a discount to those who pay for energy in this way.”
	The benefits of direct debit payment are widely accepted. For example, councils in London, including, I think, Islington and Westminster, have offered council tax payers the chance to win £25,000 simply for switching to payment by direct debit. There are good reasons why direct debit payments are encouraged. They help with monthly budgeting, especially in these difficult times, and avoid the need for people to find bigger amounts of money in one go. They reduce the risk of the customer being cut off for non-payment and having to face huge penalties, or even the bailiffs, for not paying their bills
	on time. They save the provider extra costs incurred administering the payments and the debts that build up on accounts, which ultimately they have to pass on to someone, whether through increased bills or the loss of staff. Paying by direct debit is probably the easiest, quickest and cheapest way for people to pay, and companies and councils should be free to encourage this practice with monetary incentives if they wish to do so.
	I think that my hon. Friend’s proposed Bill is unnecessary, because the power is already there to do what he wishes, should the regulator wish to use it. I think he mentioned this briefly. Ofgem writes:
	“Ofgem has introduced new rules which prohibit undue discrimination between consumers. One of these rules ensures that terms and conditions for energy supply do not treat any group of customers differently without justification. The other rule requires that any difference in price between payment methods offered by a supplier should reflect the costs they incur for providing that payment method.”
	It seems to me, therefore, that we do not need a new law along these lines. He merely needs to ask Ofgem to do its job properly, if he feels it is not already doing that, by enforcing the existing rules. The power is already there; we do not need a new law to do what can already be done.
	My hon. Friend talked about people who pay bills promptly and who should not be penalised for not paying by direct debit. I agree wholeheartedly. In the past, some companies, including British Gas, offered their customers a prompt payment discount, no matter how they paid their bill—even if they paid other than through direct debit—but that discount was scrapped because Ofgem insisted on it as part of its retail market review. If he wants to help customers who choose to pay other than by direct debit but who are good customers who pay promptly, he should encourage the regulator to allow companies to reintroduce the prompt payment discount, which many used in the first place. That would be of great help to many of the customers he wishes to target with his Bill.
	Many things get on my nerves in this House, but what does so more than most is politicians—I do not include my hon. Friend in this criticism; it is directed at others—who complain about excessive energy bills and talk about fuel poverty and how disgraceful it is that people have
	to pay so much for their energy, when they are exactly the same people who piled extra costs on to people’s energy bills by passing law after law pursuing some climate change ideology. Most energy bills nowadays contain more than £100 a year simply because of the policy decisions made by the same people who complain that energy bills are too high and should be reduced by about £100. That nerve and hypocrisy is the type of thing that does politics no credit whatsoever and makes my blood boil.
	I want lower energy bills. That is why I am proud to have been one of the five MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008 in the previous Parliament. It certainly is not becoming for the Leader of the Opposition to claim to be the friend of people who pay energy bills when he did more than most to bump up energy bills with his Climate Change Act. Funnily enough, the £113 typically added to bills by climate change policies is roughly the same as the average discount given to people paying by direct debit. If we want to reduce everybody’s bills by the £113 that my hon. Friend seeks for people who pay other than by direct debit, the easiest way to do it would be to scrap all this nonsense on climate change—this gesture politics that will not make a blind bit of difference to global temperatures, but which makes a massive difference to people’s energy bills.
	On that basis, I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, but on the whole it is undesirable and certainly unnecessary. I do not intend to divide the House, but I thought it was worth while ensuring that the alternative view was at least heard so that people can make an informed decision about whether, after all of that, they agree with his Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Robert Halfon, Tracey Crouch, Jackie Doyle-Price, Charlie Elphicke, Stephen McPartland, Albert Owen, Mark Durkan, Lady Hermon, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Ian Swales and Henry Smith present the Bill.
	Robert Halfon accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 173).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[20th Allotted Day]

Fairness and Inequality

Mr Speaker: I can inform the House that no amendment has been selected to the motion.

Jonathan Edwards: Hywel Dda, a native of the west of my country, is one of the most esteemed early kings of Wales. His main historical contribution was that he codified early Welsh law. It is no coincidence that the building that houses National Assembly Members, the Welsh national Parliament, Ty Hywel, is named after him. His name is translated into English as “Hywel the Good”. He is so known because his laws were visionary, based on compassion rather than punishment, and were seen as just. In particular, early Welsh law clearly recognised the contribution of women to society, offering clear legal protections and status in society.

Elfyn Llwyd: I once prepared a thesis on Hywel Dda. Did my hon. Friend know that back in 998 there were laws in Wales allowing women to own property? Unfortunately, our friends in England only caught up in 1882.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He makes my point for me, and his knowledge on these matters is unsurpassed.
	In 928, Hywel made a pilgrimage to Rome. On his return, he held a legal conference in my home country of Carmarthenshire, at Ty Gwyn ar Daf, his residence near Whitland on the Pembrokeshire borders, which led to the legal system practised in Wales before our country was regrettably conquered. His laws meant that those higher up the social spectrum paid more for their crimes—a reverse of the post-2008 financial crash situation in the UK, where the financial elite have got off scot free while the most disadvantaged in society are paying the price through the obliteration of the public services and support they depend on. The basic founding principle of the Hywel Dda laws was equality. Following the death of the head of a family, the estate was distributed equally between all male siblings, rather than passing under the sole control of the eldest, as under the English system.
	My reason for taking the House on this historical journey through mediaeval Wales is to make the case that the Welsh political tradition, even going back more than 1,000 years, has been based on the principles of equality and fairness. Those principles were essential elements to the sort of society that Welsh political rulers wanted to build and enshrine in law. Owain Glyndwr was the last ruler of an independent Wales and the seventh most important person of the last millennium, according to a Times poll in 1999. He heralded the return to the laws of Hywel Dda as the founding principle of his independent Wales at the beginning of the 15th century.
	Robert Owen, another great Welshman from the county of Powys, is recognised throughout the world as one of the founding pioneers of socialism. In the early
	19th century, he contributed to the work of a Committee of this House that was investigating the Poor Law. He called for a society of complete equality, and set about trying to create one with the communities that he had established.
	Wales was, of course, the incubator of the industrial revolution, and the working-class uprisings of Merthyr in 1831 and the Chartists later in the same decade were driven by that Welsh aspiration for a more equal society, in which the working classes had a fair share of the proceeds of wealth generated by their toil. As the central element of his proclamation “The Red Dragon and the Red Flag”, Keir Hardie, a proud Scotsman who became the first-ever Independent Labour party Member of Parliament, declared clearly—probably after having given up faith in this place—that the way in which to create a more fair and equal society in Wales was to advance the cause of Welsh home rule.

Jim Cunningham: There are many inequalities in present-day society, but one of the biggest burdens at present is borne by women. The Government have made tax adjustments of £14 billion, and £11 billion of that has been taken from women. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that women are the hardest hit, whether we are talking about crèche charges or about nursery charges?

Jonathan Edwards: I do not disagree with that at all. Some of my colleagues may wish later to expand on what the hon. Gentleman has said

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend has made an excellent start to his speech. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the first report from the Living Wage Commission, which was published yesterday. It contains a number of key points which I think are important in the context of the debate. It states that 6.7 million of the 13 million people in poverty in the UK are in a family where someone works, that 5.24 million workers in Britain—equal to 21% of the work force—are paid less than the living wage, that housing costs have tripled in the last 15 years, that 2.9 million people classed as over-indebted have a household income of less than £15,000 a year, and that low-paid workers are increasingly turning to support in order to get by. That is the context of governance in the United Kingdom at the present time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Westminster is failing not just the people of Scotland and Wales, but those in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution. I intend to develop some of those themes later in my speech.
	What a pity that the Labour party is so completely removed from the vision of Keir Hardie today. Last Wednesday, during a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), made one of the most depressing speeches that I have heard since being elected to serve the people of Carmarthenshire. He returned the Labour party to the dark days of the 1970s, when it was clearly the most anti-devolution party in Wales. His speech was Kinnock-esque, and I certainly do not mean that as a compliment.

Mark Williams: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Was that not made all the worse by the fact that until then there had been a consensus among all four political parties in Wales about the inevitability of the movement towards devolution, which was torpedoed by those on the Labour party’s Front Bench last week?

Jonathan Edwards: The speech made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd was a truly staggering intervention in the Silk commission debate, not least because only a year or so earlier, the very same Member and his colleagues voted in favour of the very same proposals for Scotland, which were in the Bill that became the Scotland Act 2012. I find it staggering that they now believe that those measures, if applied to Wales, would completely deconstruct the United Kingdom.
	I could travel much further on my historical journey, but I shall end it now by giving a mention to my political hero, D.J. Davies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The House would very much like the hon. Gentleman to continue his history lesson. It was being much enjoyed.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that observation from such a distinguished Member. I do not want to bore the House too much, but I want to give a mention to D.J. Davies, who is my political hero, and who was born in the same industrial valley as me, the Amman valley. In particular, I want to mention his masterpiece, “The Economics of Welsh Self-Government”, published in 1931. In that book, he made the case that the crusade for social justice for working people and the political empowerment for Wales—my country—were intrinsically intertwined. That position continues to be central to the position of my party, and to my own personal political beliefs.
	The national movements in these isles and the crusade to tackle inequalities in our communities are one and the same. In ignoring the founding principles of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish political traditions—and in its inability to tackle the gaping inequalities that exist in both individual and geographical terms—the Westminster élite is directly undermining the case for a United Kingdom, and furthering the aims of national freedom in Wales and Scotland. I should add that the Irish proclamation of independence contains an explicit commitment to equality.

Thomas Docherty: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I am sure that he is absolutely sincere, but I am baffled by his statement that the Scottish nationalists believe in reducing inequality at a time when they want to slash corporation tax for big business. Will he explain how the two fit together?

Jonathan Edwards: I do not want to become too involved in the Scottish independence debate. I have colleagues who are better qualified to do that. I will say, however, that the case for the creation of a more equal society is based on the generation of prosperity, and that the job-creating levers resulting from fiscal devolution would clearly allow the Welsh and Scottish Governments to achieve that aim.
	In my eyes, the case for the creation of that more equal society is crystal clear, and should be the overriding priority of our politics. Equality improves the well-being of citizens, reduces social tensions, and creates a fairer and more democratic society. Democracy, in its wider sense, is about far more than voting; it is about creating a fully participatory society in which everyone has an opportunity to contribute.
	Is it any wonder that voting levels are so disgracefully low? Why would those at the bottom of the pile have any interest in participating in electoral events when the main protagonists have a common vision of preserving the status of the élites that currently rule? The Huffington Post reports today that a generation of Londoners have given up all hope of owning their own homes. I certainly felt like that in my twenties, when I had a relatively well-paid job but house prices were rocketing out of control. I can assure Members that that situation is completely demoralising. It is no wonder that young people in particular feel completely disfranchised: their overriding feeling is that the world is passing them by.
	Respected academics and commentators have declared that the UK is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world, and that, given current trends, it could even end up being the most unequal. It is certainly the most unequal in terms of individual and geographical disparity anywhere in the European Union, according to last year’s EUROSTAT figures.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman mentioned prosperity a few moments ago. Having have looked carefully at the motion, I am disappointed to see nothing about skills, nothing about productivity, and nothing about the creation of high-value-added businesses. Is the hon. Gentleman not encouraged by the creation of university technical colleges, and by the millions of apprenticeship starts that will give our young people the skills that will enable them to obtain high-paid jobs?

Jonathan Edwards: Plaid Cymru has certainly prioritised apprenticeships in Wales. We struck a budget deal with the Welsh Government to secure more of them.

Angus MacNeil: The aim of the motion is to ensure that a commission is established to investigate inequality and poverty. The commission would deal with the details to which the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has referred, and I hope that he will support the motion on that basis.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to my colleague for making a very valid point on my behalf.
	I was talking about the inequality that exists in the United Kingdom. Why is this so, how is it so, and why has it been allowed to happen under successive Labour and Tory Governments? I am sure that many Members will be able to cite numerous facts and figures that amply demonstrate the inequality and lack of fairness that exist in the UK; indeed, we have already heard several interventions to that effect.

Nigel Dodds: I may not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says today, but I can tell him that in September 2013 the
	average Northern Ireland household was surviving on discretionary income of £60 a week, while average discretionary income in the United Kingdom was £157 a week. There is clearly a big discrepancy throughout the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why devolution is so important is that it can lead to local solutions, and can enable local help to benefit the citizens of the devolved countries?

Jonathan Edwards: In that regard, the Democratic Unionist party and Plaid Cymru share a common vision, in that we need to empower our respective Governments to deal with the economic and social challenges that our people face.
	I want to set out how and why this inequality has been allowed to take a grip and, indeed, been actively pursued by the powers that be. I will also set out how that can be reversed, and how places such as Wales can become more prosperous and egalitarian societies. We have seen the over-concentration of power, status and influence in a narrow and unrepresentative financial elite over the past three decades. That has allowed greed, avarice and hubris to take hold among the elite’s own ranks, while poverty, destitution and exclusion have risen among much of the rest of society.
	The uneven economic development of the UK and the concentration of so much wealth and power around London and the south-east distort much of the UK’s public life. They influence and shape many of the political, media and business perceptions about what is good for the entire UK, and lead to geographical polarisation and a super-concentration by Westminster politicians on certain sectors of the population whose opinion is seen as worth courting and listening to.

Richard Fuller: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he think that that concentration of power and authority in London and certain other parts of the country was a natural change that occurred as a result of global changes and that the Government did nothing to mitigate it, or does he think that it was a result of active Government policies over the past three decades?

Jonathan Edwards: I shall endeavour to answer that very valid question in my speech.
	The electoral system plays a large part in creating the distortion. Using a small number of so-called swing seats, predominantly in more affluent areas, political strategists base their politics on the philosophy of triangulation, ignoring those on the periphery. Anyone interested in changing the course of Westminster politics should embrace the cause of a more proportional electoral system, which would immediately lead to a wider realignment. It is no wonder that the Tories would die in a ditch rather than reform the first-past-the-post system. More disappointing is the position of some on the Opposition Benches, who would torpedo any such reform. The only explanation I can offer is that the self-interest of super-safe majorities and a job for life trump the desire to achieve worthy political objectives such as a fairer society.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman’s assertion that a change in the voting system would do away with jobs for life is not borne out by the way in which things have worked out in practice. In Scotland, for example, there is concern that someone can go from being a list MSP to a constituency MSP then back to being a list MSP without ever feeling that their job is unsafe. Also, people can be in a similar position in local government for a long time. So doing away with jobs for life is not inherent in getting rid of first past the post.

Jonathan Edwards: The answer to that is to have openness rather than party-controlled lists. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not share my ambition for wider political realignment in the United Kingdom, and that she prefers a system in which priority is always given to the affluent areas in the south-east of England.

Margaret Ritchie: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Northern Ireland has had a system of proportional representation for about 40 years. Does he agree that a PR electoral system provides opportunities that would not otherwise exist for minorities to be represented?

Jonathan Edwards: I believe that the House of Commons would be far better if we had such a system, rather than a system that bases its politics on preserving the power of two political parties.
	Economic development has become radically distorted as inequality has risen. My constituency predecessor pointed out last year in an economic study entitled “Offa’s Gap” that the Welsh economy had been growing more slowly in relation to its historical trend growth and to that of the UK economy for the past two decades. He and Plaid Cymru’s other noted economics adviser, Eurfyl ap Gwilym, concluded that Wales needed the kind of defined economic and export development strategy that is sadly lacking under the current Labour Welsh Government. Similarly, the economic policies of the current Westminster Government are woefully inadequate and ignore the requirements of my country.

Angus MacNeil: Given the lag in growth in the Welsh economy, is it not all the more perplexing that the Government in Cardiff—who must know far more about the situation there than I do—are choosing not to take the powers to do anything about it? It is like a man on a ship that is heading for the rocks refusing to put his hand on the tiller and instead letting it carry on merrily towards the rocks. It is a scandal that Labour has chosen that route.

Jonathan Edwards: The people of Wales might want to ask themselves what is behind that decision. Are the Welsh Government afraid of their own ability to use those powers effectively, or do they have a vested interest in our communities remaining poor and disadvantaged?
	The legacy of de-industrialisation in places such as Wales is well known. Levels of poverty, disability, and ill health are high. There is a lack of economic opportunities, and the flight of the many young ambitious people understandably wanting to make something of themselves is invariably known as the brain drain. That creates a vicious circle of its own. A Centre for Cities report at
	the end of last month noted that 80% of private sector job growth since 2010 was in London, that one in three young people now move here for work, and that power should ultimately be devolved in order to allow greater freedom for areas outside London to develop.
	Historically, vast areas of the British state have been economically depressed, with most political efforts concentrated on the south-east. Today, GDP per person in inner London is almost 10 times that of many parts of Wales, including the communities I represent. Many areas of northern England are in the same boat as Wales. Great inequalities exist within London itself, and we must not forget that challenge, but there is an overwhelming concentration of wealth in that region—70% higher than the UK average. It is the current political structures and policy priorities of the Labour-Tory tag team that have allowed this to happen.
	One would hope that when one part of the state is the richest in the European Union and others are the poorest, there would be a clarion call for action. Alas, the Westminster elite seem oblivious to the matter, pursuing the same old failed policies of the past. Indeed, who could forget Lord Mandelson, the man who so epitomised Labour in office, saying that he was
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”?
	It is no wonder that wealth inequalities gathered pace under the last Labour Government. Incredibly, west Wales and the valleys now find themselves below parts of Bulgaria and Romania in the EU wealth league.
	There are many indicators of rising inequality, besides individual and geographical disparity. Over the past decade, the number of households in fuel poverty in Wales has risen from around 140,000 to 386,000 at the last count in 2012. That is 30% of the Welsh total. I strongly suspect that the total will have risen since then, given the combination of oil price inflation and a real-terms reduction in wages.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. I wonder whether he is aware of the new research by the High Pay Centre, which finds that workplaces with big pay gaps between the highest and lowest paid suffer from far more industrial disputes, more sickness and higher staff turnover than those with more equitable pay differentials. Does he recognise that, as well as addressing levels of pay, we need to reduce pay ratios and advocate concrete steps towards ensuring that the maximum wage in any organisation is no more than, say, 10 times the minimum wage in that same organisation?

Jonathan Edwards: I fully concur with my hon. Friend. One thing that is often not mentioned is the cost of inequality, particularly the health costs. If the Government pursued a policy of creating a more equal society, the Treasury would benefit from the reduction in expenditure on health care.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman mentioned fuel poverty. Does he agree that it is much worse in areas that are off the gas grid? That particularly affects Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as rural parts of England. Does he also agree that we need a comprehensive strategy to extend the gas grid so that more people can benefit from heating their homes with gas?

Jonathan Edwards: My constituency is largely off the gas grid, despite being in a mining valley and containing some large urban areas. The coal miners campaigned against having the gas grid there, because they wanted to use coal. The impacts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are clear. I can speak from personal experience, having moved from an area where gas was my main form of heating and gone back to live in my home community, which is off the gas grid. The difference is staggering, and quite eye-watering. The policies that have been put forward by the other parties completely neglect this huge problem affecting rural areas.

Michael Weir: Given the interest of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) in areas that are off the gas grid, does the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) think he should support our initiatives on giving pensioners their winter fuel allowance at an earlier date and ensuring that the energy company obligation extends to off-grid gas boilers, which is not the case currently?

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done on this issue. He has twice presented Bills to pursue that common-sense proposal, and when it comes before the House again I intend to be here to support him—I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden will be, too.

Nigel Dodds: May I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Wealden, because Northern Ireland is dependent to a high degree on home heating oil—off-grid energy supply—with some 70% of our households using it. Our household bills are, on average, way beyond the highest bills in the rest of the UK. It is important that the issue is highlighted and something is done to address the situation of those who are off grid.

Jonathan Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. He will be aware of the lack of competition in the market, where there are perhaps five or six suppliers with more or less mirrored pricing policies. The Government should examine that, and let us hope they remedy the situation affecting those individuals who are off the gas grid.
	Wales is a country rich in natural resources, and it is a net exporter of electricity. No one in an energy-rich country such as mine should have to live in fuel poverty, yet 30% of the people in my country do. The energy sector was privatised by the Tories and the current market was set up by Labour in 2002, allowing the previous regional monopolies to merge into the big six. It is symbolic of the profiteering, privatisation and corporate greed that has undermined poorer areas and poorer people under Labour and Tory misrule.
	Wales is a colonial economy, where our natural capital is extracted for no or little economic and social benefit to our people. No wonder the Westminster elite oppose empowering the Welsh Government by giving them control over our natural assets. Last week, the shadow Environment Secretary made an incredible intervention in the Scottish independence debate when she said that if Scotland votes yes, the remnants of the UK might stop importing Scottish electricity if Labour were in power and look to other markets for supply. That one
	intervention summarises the Westminster elite and how they view Wales and Scotland. No wonder that on social media these sort of “Project Fear” scare stories have earned the hashtag “know your place”. I would wager that my friends in the yes campaign in Scotland are delighted at such ill-judged interventions.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about that intervention last week. Does he think that if Wales were to follow our friends in Scotland, England might stop taking its water?

Jonathan Edwards: That is a very useful intervention, and I think the answer depends on the progress on the desalination plants. I am following the debate in Scotland with great interest, because we will be having the same debate in Wales within the next couple of decades and we will have the “Project Fear” manifesto off the bookshelf ready to read.

Angus MacNeil: I just want to tell the hon. Gentleman that the “Project Fear” manual has a short lifespan. It is almost as Robert Burns said, in that it is a snowflake in a river:
	“A moment white—then melts for ever”.
	The fears fall apart on a daily basis; they last only for about 48 hours, but that does not stop them being reheated.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for those insightful remarks. In Scotland, we are seeing the same stories as were used in other parts of the British empire when they endeavoured to seek their political independence. That approach will fail in Scotland and it will fail in Wales when our turn comes.
	By the end of Labour’s time in office, child poverty had increased, with 32% of children in Wales living in poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The number fell in 2012, but only because wages had fallen across the board. That technicality in the way child poverty is calculated ignores the fact that falling wages mean even less resources with which to feed hungry young mouths. The recent rapid rise of food banks is yet another symptom of growing inequality. The Labour Welsh Government had set the target of eradicating child poverty by 2020, but they cannot and will never achieve that if they do not stand up for Wales. It cannot be achieved while their masters in London refuse to confront the widening gulf in equality that has been emerging over the past 30 years and even accelerated under their watch.

Sheila Gilmore: Constantly saying that there is no difference between the Labour Governments and the Conservative Government is not helpful. Does the hon. Gentleman have no memory of the reduction in pensioner poverty and the reductions in child poverty achieved under the Labour Government? Do those things not matter in the story that he wants to tell?

Jonathan Edwards: As the former head of policy for Citizens Advice in Wales, I have some expertise in this matter; the Labour party achieved its reduction in the child poverty figures by changing the way in which the statistics were calculated, thus removing 1 million children from child poverty overnight.
	Last summer, the TUC produced a report that concluded that workers’ pay had fallen by 8% in real terms between 2007 and 2012 in Wales—the sharpest fall in any of the nations and regions of the UK. That is the level of the drop in living standards that Labour and the Tories have presided over. The UK is badly damaged and corroded, if not completely broken. The old pillars of the British establishment—banking, media and politics—have crumbled one by one, leaving an unrestrained crony capitalism which is not about good business or genuine wealth creation, but about monopoly, oligopoly and corporate self-interest.

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that litany of failure, but is it not right that in a debate such as this we should be able to compare and contrast the reality here with that elsewhere? Has he had an opportunity to look at the world happiness report, an annual publication taking into account GDP, life expectancy and social support internationally? It showed that eight of the top 10 countries are small European independent states. What makes them so successful while the UK fails so dramatically for people across its nations and regions?

Jonathan Edwards: It comes down to the fact that Governments of small countries are far closer to the aspirations and requirements of their people, whereas larger states find that far more difficult to achieve, especially where the state is very centralised, as ours is in the United Kingdom, with power heavily concentrated in Westminster.
	Symptoms of what I am describing include the privatisation of the health service in England—the current Tory policy of building on the layers laid down by Labour, with its introduction of foundation hospitals and use of the private finance initiative. The privatisation of services and assets has carried on unabated. For example, Labour's plan to privatise Royal Mail has been carried out by the Tories and Lib Dems during this Parliament. Is it any wonder that Scotland is now beginning to believe that it can do things better and differently, or that the people of Wales increasingly demand that we have more powers to control our lives and better reflect our political values?
	The most detailed research since devolution began was undertaken by the Silk commission, which has been tasked with pathfinding the next steps in the Welsh devolution journey. The findings of that detailed research are extremely encouraging: 62% want more powers for Wales, with only a paltry 20% against—that reflects all the geographical areas of my country; 80% believe that the National Assembly defends Welsh interests better than Westminster; 80% want responsibility for energy policy to be in Wales; 63% want powers over policing; 58% want powers over broadcasting; and there was also a clear majority for devolving social protection—or at least its administration, as is the case in Northern Ireland, which has enabled its Government to stop the implementation of the bedroom tax. However, only 20% support devolution of defence and foreign affairs, so clearly there is a bit of work to do to progress those two areas in my country.
	In many areas of the UK, it is taken for granted that the Tory party long ago discarded any pretensions to a one-nation paternalist conservatism that sought to mould
	itself around social democratic values. Instead it embraced Thatcherism and its resultant rise in economic inequality. Of greater concern, however, is the complete dereliction of duty by Labour in its failure and unwillingness to deal with rising inequality. Westminster is now synonymous with inequality from its representation to its policies.
	Following the 2010 Westminster election and the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crash, a new UK coalition Government pledged to rebalance the economy of the British state by sector and on a geographical basis. Who can forget the Chancellor’s triumphant claim, “We’re all in this together”? He told us that he was creating an economy
	“carried aloft by the march of the makers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
	What is more worrying is the Government’s admission that this is failing. The Business Secretary now fully admits that London
	“is a giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country.”
	Yet the Government do precious little to rectify that. Only last month the Financial Times reported that the wealth gap between London and the nations and regions is set to widen. A professor at the London School of Economics has noted that London is the
	“dark star of the economy, inexorably sucking in resources, people and energy.”

Stephen Crabb: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the most recent economic data for gross value added growth in Wales and across the UK, he will see that growth in Wales is rebounding stronger than the UK average. It is closing the gap rather than, as he purports, increasing it.

Jonathan Edwards: We welcome the fact that Wales has moved up. None the less, we are still at the bottom of the wealth league. West Wales, the area that both the Minister and I represent, fell by 4%. That is a record of failure. It says something about the Welsh Government’s policies as well—I am not just slinging my sticks at my friend on the Government Benches.
	Today, Aditya Chakrabortty’s article in the Guardian highlights how public money and private wealth are being hoovered up by London. He notes that last year, the Institute for Public Policy Research published research that showed that the transport spending system is broken. Transport spending is £2,731 per head in London, compared with £5 per head in the north-east of England. In Wales, we receive only 0.7% of the transport infrastructure spend, yet we represent 5% of the population. There is still not a single mile of electrified track in Wales, which puts us on a par with the likes of Albania—so much for Labour standing up for Wales during 13 years in power. We welcome the announcement by this Government that they will electrify the line to Swansea. However, the pressing issue for us is whether we will get our fair share from the vast expenditure on High Speed 2, which the Government are intent on pursuing. As everyone has noted, that expenditure on HS2 will hoover up all transport infrastructure spending for generations to come. Given that it is an England-only railway—the last time I looked on a map, Manchester, York and Birmingham were all in England—Wales deserves at least 5% of that expenditure.
	After decades of increasing wealth inequality under successive Westminster Administrations, it was hoped that finally there would be a change of direction. Instead, what we have seen is ideological austerity and ultra-loose monetary policy, which has seen redistribution in reverse. Amazingly, Labour has signed up to the same fiscal strategy if it forms the next UK Government. It is an incredible strategic decision that overrides all others, but it has barely been mentioned in dispatches by a London-centric media that views it as par for the course.
	Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, believes that Wales is best served when we are free to decide our future and set our own course. That is why it is so important that the job-creation and economy-boosting financial powers recommended by the UK Commission on Devolution in Wales are implemented as soon as possible; they are a bare minimum. However, on their own they are unlikely to reverse the decades of inverted wealth distribution. For as long as Wales continues to be a part of the UK and Plaid Cymru MPs are in this place, we will seek to reform it. An economic fairness Act would force the UK Government—whoever they were—to implement a range of measures to ensure that more economic and job opportunities are created outside the south-east of England with statutory obligations to tackle individual inequality.
	Such an Act would concentrate minds on a genuine rebalancing of the economy, turning us away from financial services and banking towards areas such as manufacturing and engineering. It would allow for measures such as prioritising poorer areas for infrastructure spending and investment, bringing jobs and growth. Legislation based on the Communities Reinvestment Act in the US would be included to ensure that the private banking sector operates fairly in terms of which geographical areas it prioritises for lending. I need not remind the House of the enormous problems that Welsh businesses have faced as a result of banks’ activities since the crash. It is a complete disgrace that in 2008 £1.4 trillion of taxpayers’ money—100% of the country’s wealth—was put into loans, grants and guarantees and used to pull up the banking sector.
	In Wales, a national public development bank should be set up to ensure businesses in our country are able to access finance to grow and develop. The devolved Government would be empowered with the job creation levers to incentivise economic development.

Nia Griffith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, with a tax take from people living in Wales being some £9 billion short of tax expenditure, an independent Wales would put right that hole in the economy?

Jonathan Edwards: I have been totally clear in my comments about the constitutional journey of my country: we are not in a position to fight for independence at this very moment, which is why Wales needs the economic powers to build up its economy to be in a position to do so. We are in a different situation to Scotland. We will not get anywhere if we continue with the policies of the Labour party, which aims to keep economic control in London and to keep our communities impoverished. It is in its vested interest to do so, which is why it is opposed to all the measures being put forward by the Silk commission.

Angus MacNeil: People who say that Wales’ tax take is not equivalent to its expenditure are quite short-sighted. They fail to realise that they are living in the United Kingdom, the tax take of which has not matched expenditure since 2001, and is not likely to do so until 2018. This is a UK that records a deficit year after year, and has a debt that grows year after year.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Obviously, Mr MacNeil will want to catch my eye to make his speech. I would not like him to use it all up now, so shorter interventions.

Jonathan Edwards: The point that is often forgotten is that despite the fact that London is one of the richest parts of the European Union and that communities such as mine in Carmarthenshire are at the bottom of the European wealth league, public expenditure per head is higher in London than it is in Wales—that is until very recent figures, which showed that Welsh spending had caught up. It is an incredible situation. I could not make this up.
	The way in which monetary policy is formulated is also in severe need of reform. The week before last, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the Bank of England, or the Sterling Central Bank as it should be renamed, to be reformed better to take into account the economies of the UK when formulating monetary policy. The Governor should appear for scrutiny before the relevant Committees of the devolved legislatures, and meet with the devolved Governments, just as he has to with the Chancellor and the relevant Select Committees in Westminster.
	In addition, the four external members of the Monetary Policy Committee should be nominated by the four nations, rather than hand-picked by the Chancellor of the day from the self-serving banking elite. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my friends from Northern Ireland who supported that early-day motion. There is an interesting story in the Western Mail about the need for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to collaborate in the event of Scottish independence, be it a yes or a no vote, to ensure that we are not bombarded by Westminster. I hope that it might be a small step on the road to greater collaboration. Instead, what we have is a drive towards regional pay in the public sector, introduced by the previous UK Government and now developed by the coalition, which ghettoises low-wage economies outside London.
	Labour has gone a step further, with a pledge to cap benefits on a geographical basis if it forms the next Government. That means that the unemployed and disabled in Wales will receive fewer payments than those who happen to live in London. Wales will have lost more than £1 billion during 2013-14 due to cuts in benefits. Those include payments that people in work receive to top-up low wages. That money would have been spent directly in the Welsh economy, but is now lost.
	Rather than hitting the sick and unemployed with a stick and labelling them “scroungers”, why do we not embrace the active labour market programme employed so successfully in Sweden? It is an interventionist policy, in which the Swedish Government spend twice the amount per capita that is spent in the UK, creating tailored action plans. The programme has productivity
	and mental health benefits, so it ends up costing the taxpayer far less, as individuals are moved from social security into employment, and it eases considerable pressure on heath services.
	It is increasingly clear that the Treasury has been re-infected with the British disease of basing growth on inflating house prices backed up with taxpayers’ cash—the Help to Buy policy. Far from rebalancing the economy, the Treasury is reintroducing boom and bust. Instead of delivering an equitable share of infrastructure investment across the UK, the Exchequer lavishes London with its grand design projects, be it the Olympics, Crossrail 1 and 2 or High Speed 2. UK Trade & Investment does not deliberately channel foreign direct investment into the poorest parts of the state, unlike its German counterpart, Germany Trade & Invest, which has a statutory duty to do so. Is it not sobering that despite the cold war and a physical wall between the east and west of its country, Germany today is far more balanced in geographical wealth than the UK?
	Other places have shown the way. Germany is a federal republic, and the constitution requires fiscal equalisation among the Länder. That is a timeless requirement on all parts of government, and policies are required no matter the era. After reunification, when poorer East Germany joined developed West Germany, a massive effort meant a variety of measures were implemented, including financial transfers to poorer regions and industrial development policies.
	The same could be done from Westminster, but it has not been. The alternative is the approach favoured by the London parties, whereby investment is concentrated in London and the south-east, and wealth inequalities continue to rise. It is clear that it is time for a change. Where are the voices in support of such a change? Who will turn back the tide of growing inequality? We know that we cannot rely on the Tories in London, so unashamed are they in their love of banking and the financial elite. Where is Labour? Why is it not standing up against inequality? Its amendment seeks to wreck our motion, absolving it of its role in creating rising inequality over the past decade, but it is bereft of policies.
	Last week, some of Labour’s Wales-based Members defended the UK as a redistributive Union. They are deluding themselves, both about their record in government, as inequality rose during that period, and about the current situation. A closer examination of their voting record would suggest that their rhetoric is unsupported by action. I cite their abstention on the Welfare Reform Bill, which introduced the cruel and dreaded bedroom tax; their abstention on a cut in the top rate of income tax; and their refusal to support any measure to help to promote measures to provide the Welsh Government with the economic powers that they need to move the Welsh economy forward.

Iain McKenzie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bedroom tax, and I invite him to congratulate Scottish Labour which, in the Scottish Parliament, pushed the Scottish Government to end the bedroom tax in Scotland. Will he further assist me in calling on the Scottish Government to reimburse those good citizens who have already paid the bedroom tax?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that his party is not in power in Scotland any more—it is the Scottish National party Government
	who introduced that policy. Rather than grandstanding, he would be better advised to congratulate the SNP on its progressive track record in government.
	Who could forget the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, promising to be “tougher than the Tories” on benefits? Only today, the Leader of the Opposition has praised none other than Baroness Thatcher, that well known proponent of fairness and equality, in a bid to reform public services. By that, he can only mean more privatisation. Perhaps the greatest let down, and without a doubt Labour’s greatest folly, reflecting its abandonment of the fight against inequality, is its commitment to Tory austerity cuts post-2015. It is now blocking fiscal devolution to Wales, which would enable us to develop our own economy. It has also failed to commit to fair funding for Wales, even though it admits underfunding by more than £300 million a year as a result of the Barnett formula.
	The national parties of Wales and Scotland fight for a partnership of equals between the nations of these isles. However, it is about far more than that. It is about what we do once we achieve that aim. The main reason is to honour the political traditions of our countries, which I have set out today and which have been undermined by centuries of Westminster rule.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—my hon. Friend—who spoke with trademark passion. He gave us a treat by dipping into Welsh political traditions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I greatly enjoyed his history lesson. I, too, went to school in Wales, and I remember some of that history. I caution the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr against looking back to the days of Hywel Dda through rose-tinted spectacles, as it was a brutal and unpleasant time.
	I would also caution the hon. Gentleman against drawing a direct, continuous line from the days of Hywel Dda to 20th-century state socialism. If we are talking about the long-term economic problems with which Wales is still struggling, I would point out that state socialism was part of the problem for much of the 20th century, not part of the solution. I would also refer him to other political traditions in Wales that point to a stronger civic society and a culture of self-help. There is a more communitarian tradition, which risks being emasculated by any return to state socialism.
	I pay tribute to the SNP and Plaid Cymru for choosing the topic for today’s debate, and I am happy to have the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to reduce inequality and ensure fairness in society. Where the hon. Gentleman’s speech was a little disappointing, if I may say so, was in—

Gordon Banks: The content.

Stephen Crabb: The content was marked by the absence of a really attractive vision for what the Welsh economy could be. I was sitting expectantly, hoping that the hon.
	Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr would set out a vision of what small-country, successful economics might look like under a Plaid Cymru Administration, but we heard precious little about that. I hope that some of his colleagues will be able to enlighten us on that. Instead, there was a familiar return to the talk of more spending, more borrowing and more debt—exactly the things that will shackle the people of Wales and their children for generations to come with more economic problems.

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister agree that there is nothing fair at all about getting the next generation to pay even more of this generation’s debts?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is nothing fair, progressive or just about loading future generations with more debt and the consequences of debt. If we are a responsible political generation in the House, we will take care to ensure that our decisions minimise the impact on future generations.
	This country continues to face deep-seated, long-standing economic challenges. The UK underwent an economic trauma between 2008 and 2010, and we are still living with the consequences. As a result of that trauma in those two years, there was a huge destruction of value in the economy, and a destruction of wealth, and we are still recovering from that, even in 2014. Although it is difficult for Opposition parties to admit, the Government have made difficult, challenging decisions and taken practical steps to reduce the deficit and restore stability and order to our national finances, which is the starting point—the foundation—for tackling all the other social and economic issues that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and others have begun to raise in the House this afternoon. As a coalition Government, we are ambitious that the emerging economic recovery should be a recovery for all parts of the UK, including Scotland and Wales, and for all people from all walks of life in our country. That is at the heart of our vision of fairness as a coalition Government.

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that the socialist remedy is so often to think of tax and regulations to get rid of the rich from London to abroad, and hopeless in thinking of ways of promoting other people to good jobs and success so that they can enjoy and share the prosperity?

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. There seems to be a blind spot in the left in that respect. We have begun to discuss fiscal powers for Wales and Scotland, and as that debate continues, what we should see from all the parties in Wales and Scotland are new, creative ideas to increase wealth and incentivise entrepreneurialism in those two challenged parts of the country.
	Before I set out what the Government have done to tackle inequality and build a recovery for all, I want to deal with some of the issues that are already starting to be raised in this important debate. On the issue of spending and the necessary cuts to spending that we still have to make, the simple truth is that the previous Government left Britain borrowing more than £400 million every single day to pay for Government spending. As a result of the difficult decisions that we have taken, the
	deficit is now down by a third and we are borrowing nearly £3,000 less for every hard-working family in the country. However, there is still a long way to go. We are still borrowing around £100 billion a year and paying half that a year in interest just to service our debts, so there remain some difficult and challenging spending decisions further down the line. Whichever party or parties are in government after the next election, they will have to meet those decisions and challenges head on.

Caroline Lucas: For the benefit of us all and to enable a more enlightened debate, it would be helpful if the Government stopped pretending that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)was responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. I blame the Labour party for a lot, but the idea that the current economic crisis was somehow caused by that is ludicrous. It was a global economic crisis and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the Minister has got the message.

Stephen Crabb: I applaud the hon. Lady for her attempt to rescue the reputation of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. The truth is that the trajectory of public spending was already far too high, even before the banking collapse. There was a structural deficit that placed at risk the stability of the UK finances even before the banking collapse.

Debbie Abrahams: Does the Minister not accept that official statistics show that the debt-to-GDP ratio was lower in 2008 than when we came into power in 1997? Those are the official figures.

Stephen Crabb: I am not sure that I recognise the figures that the hon. Lady gives.

Richard Fuller: Will the Minister assure the House that he understands the figures even if the Opposition do not, and that between 1995 and 2010 the total indebtedness of the UK went from twice the size of the economy to five times the size of the economy, making us the most indebted major economy in the world?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend explains it very well for the benefit of Members of all parties. Under the previous Labour Government, the trajectory of public spending was set on a reckless course, and when the banking crisis hit, the true consequences were felt by hard-working families throughout the country.

Andrea Leadsom: While Opposition Members would like to absolve Gordon Brown of any guilt over the collapse of the banking system, only this morning in the Treasury Committee we were looking still at the debacle of the Co-operative bank—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Andrea Leadsom: It is very apparent—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. When I say “Order” I expect the hon. Lady to sit down. The intervention is becoming a ramble, but more importantly we are talking about a Member of Parliament, not by name I hope.

Stephen Crabb: The choice still facing the United Kingdom is either to stick to the long-term economic plan to secure a better, more financially secure future for hard-working people and their families throughout the country, or to listen to the Opposition parties and the motion before us calling for a return to the days of spending and borrowing beyond our means, leaving our children and their children to pick up the bill.

Angus Robertson: As we are talking about getting the record straight, recent quotes of the Business Secretary have been raised a number of times. He said that London
	“is becoming a giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country”.
	Does the Minister agree with the Business Secretary?

Stephen Crabb: We touched on this point during the opening speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. I remind hon. Members that the most recent gross value added figures show that parts of the United Kingdom far from London are rebounding strongly with growth and starting to narrow some of the economic gap that we are all concerned about.

John Redwood: I think the Minister could agree that the former Prime Minister and Chancellor was not responsible for Lehman Brothers, but by the same token, should my hon. Friend not remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the competition and banking regulation regime that led to the collapse on his watch of the Scottish banks RBS and HBOS?

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend makes the point perfectly well.
	It is the firmly held belief of this Government that it must pay to be in work, and we are restoring the incentives to work; restoring the value of work in our society. That is one of the reasons why we have brought in the benefit cap, opposed by the Opposition parties, to ensure that families are always better off in work rather than claiming benefit. We are also increasing the incentives in the tax system, putting money back into the pockets of working people by raising the income tax personal allowance to £10,000, taking 2.7 million people, many of whom are on the lowest wages, out of income tax altogether. In Wales alone, that will benefit 1.2 million workers, taking 130,000 people out of income tax altogether. For the record, in Scotland 2.2 million workers will benefit and 240,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether.

Sheila Gilmore: The Minister is very quick to talk about taxation issues, but surely the net effect of the Government’s policies on tax, on payments of benefits and tax credits, is that people on lower incomes have suffered a loss.

Stephen Crabb: I simply disagree with the hon. Lady’s argument. The Government are determined that, as the economic recovery emerges throughout the country, people on the lowest incomes should be at the front of the queue to benefit from that recovery.
	We recognise that for those on the lowest pay things remain challenging. Wage levels are not where we want them to be. That is why we need a strong minimum wage. I am proud that the coalition Government have not only implemented the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission in full, but that last year we were able to go beyond its recommendations and increase the apprentice rate too. We can afford that only because we have taken difficult and responsible financial decisions.

Russell Brown: The Minister is exactly right. The coalition Government have taken tens of thousands of people out of paying tax, but does he agree with his Liberal Democrat colleagues, that if they raised that tax-free allowance any higher, people who are not paying tax at the moment will see no benefit from that?

Stephen Crabb: I have just given the House the numbers of people who are benefiting from the steps that we are taking to increase the personal allowance. With that measure and the other steps that we are taking, such as strengthening the minimum wage, we are providing real practical tools to ensure that those on the lowest incomes start to see the benefit of the economic recovery.

William Bain: The Minister omitted to mention that 279,000 people in this country go to work every day but do not even receive the minimum wage. I want to take him to the point he made about making work pay. What would he say to a low-income worker in Wales, England, Northern Ireland or Scotland who will see the work allowance of universal credit frozen this year, next year and the year after, taking £600 million away from low-paid workers?

Stephen Crabb: In Wales, when universal credit is rolled out fully, 200,000 households will see their entitlements increase under universal credit. Alongside that are all of the incentives brought in to encourage work and more hours of work, so that people are not penalised for choosing to work rather than stay at home on benefit.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr started his contribution by referring to Hwyel Dda and the position of women in society in Wales in the 15th century, so I want to take a moment to look at the role of women in our society, which I expect will be raised more as we get further into the debate. There are more women at work than ever before. Nearly 14 million women are in employment—an increase of more than half a million since May 2010. Let us compare that with the record of the previous Government, who oversaw a rise in female unemployment of 30%. We recognise that for some women the work that is available might be part time or reduced hours, and we should not be tempted to fall into lazy thinking that women always prefer to work part time. A great many do not; a great many women want to work full time.

Caroline Lucas: I certainly agree with the Minister on that. Does he agree that it is a scandal that we still do not have equal pay for equal work? Will he join me in calling for compulsory equal pay audits for larger employers, as well as legislation to require that within five years 40% of board members of larger companies are female, so that we can begin to address this fundamental inequality?

Stephen Crabb: I absolutely agree with the aspiration to have greater fairness in the workplace and to narrow the gender pay gap, but I will not be tempted to agree with all the compulsory measures and burdens that the hon. Lady would place on businesses. We want businesses to be the engines of job creation for both men and women in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, so we should resist the temptation always to call for more regulations and burdens to be placed on them. The best way to increase the availability of work that fits the needs of women, and indeed the needs of all those seeking work, is to grow the economy and create more opportunities for work.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr also mentioned food banks. Unlike the previous Government, who did not want even to admit that food banks existed and refused to allow them to be advertised in jobcentres—Labour Members still try to duck the fact that the number of food banks increased more than tenfold when they were in government—we take a positive view of their role. I have been the trustee of a food bank in my constituency in west Wales. I am proud that this Government are working in partnership with food banks, which are a vital part of a social economy at what is still a difficult time for a great many families.

Gordon Banks: Despite the Minister’s rhetoric at the Dispatch Box, can he not just for once agree, openly and honestly, that the number of food banks and the number of people in work who are using them have gone through the roof on this Government’s watch?

Stephen Crabb: The number of food banks has been increasing for a great many years, as has the number of people using them, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to pretend that 2010 was somehow year zero. The food bank that I was a trustee of was set up in 2007, under the previous Labour Government. We should not forget that one of the reasons people are driven to use food banks is household debt. The Labour party, as well as being intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, was also far too relaxed about people being pushed into excessive household debt.

Michael Weir: I accept that 2010 was not year zero for food banks, but the reality is that they are increasing exponentially, mostly because of the benefit changes introduced by this Government, who are clobbering many low-paid families, and often the people using them are in work.

Stephen Crabb: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the reasons that drive people to use food banks are complex and it is a mistake to try to single out any one cause. When I speak with food banks in Wales, they do not tell me that it is the benefit changes that are responsible in most cases. Household debt is a far more important factor.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. Citizens Advice has analysed why people are going to food banks and found that inappropriate sanctions as a result of welfare reforms and low pay are the key contributors.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Lady talks about inappropriate sanctions on benefits. I recall hearing one of her Front-Bench colleagues say only a few weeks ago that the Labour party would be even tougher on benefits than
	this Government have been. I think that she needs to get some consistency with her Front Benchers on whether they support sanctions.
	The best way to reduce economic inequality is to have a growing economy and to ensure that people are in work. Today, more people in Wales have gone out to work than at any time before, with economic inactivity at its lowest level since records began. However, the tragedy is that there are still 200,000 people in our country who have never worked a day in their lives. I hope that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr agrees wholeheartedly that that represents an enormous waste of talent, potential and skill and that a small nation such as ours cannot afford to lose that potential. I hope that he shares my ambition for welfare reform to see those people who have been locked in worklessness brought back into the labour market to achieve their full economic and social contribution.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister think that the situation he describes is the result of something inherent in those people or the result of the circumstances and structures they are living in?

Stephen Crabb: That question probably warrants a separate debate. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people want to work. I believe that human beings are hard-wired to want to make an economic and social contribution, but the welfare system, which too often the Opposition parties run to the barricades to defend, blunted that inherent instinct that people have to want to better themselves and to choose work over dependency.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister has accepted that it is not the result of something inherent in those people, so why do they not work, and why can they not work? I contend that it is the structure of the United Kingdom that leaves them in that situation.

Stephen Crabb: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman’s question the first time.
	More than 1.6 million private sector jobs have been created since 2010, and the way to ensure that that number keeps growing is to maintain this Government’s economic discipline and not to follow the discredited plan-B economics of the Opposition parties, which would see growth slow down and inequality widen.
	We recognise that the economic situation is still challenging for many people across the UK, but we are committed to reducing the burden on the cost of living where we can. Inflation is at its lowest for four years, benefiting families and businesses across the UK. The Government recognise the impact that persistently high pump prices have on the cost of living and on business costs. We have taken action to support the motorist by freezing duty for almost four years. Had we continued on the path set by the previous Government and followed their taxation plans in full, petrol would be 13p higher per litre than it is today and the average motorist would be paying more than £7 extra for a tank of fuel.
	Under the previous Government, energy prices escalated, with the average domestic gas bill doubling between 1997 and 2010. It is this Government who have brought forward changes to help reduce energy bills. We are
	ensuring that the most vulnerable get direct help with their bills: 230,000 homes will be warmer this year by getting energy efficiency measures installed under the energy company obligation; and 2 million households will get help under the warm home discount, including more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners.

Gordon Banks: The Minister now has an opportunity to say whether he will support Labour’s plan to freeze energy prices to cut the burden on hard-pressed households.

Stephen Crabb: I will not be tempted to support an unworkable and generalised plan that has been criticised by industry stakeholders and the people who really know about these matters. What I support are the practical steps that this Government are taking on a broad range of fronts to return money to the pockets of hard-working people and insulate the most vulnerable against the challenges that remain in our economy.
	Hon. Members would not know it from the interventions of Opposition Members, but inequality surged when the Labour party was in government. It is the party that was, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said, intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. This Government are determined to see inequality fall. It is under this Government that those with the broadest shoulders are facing the greatest burden. The richest members of society now pay a higher proportion of tax than they have ever done, with the richest 1% paying almost 30% of the total income tax take and the richest 5% paying almost half.
	There is nothing fair about ignoring or ducking the challenge of welfare reform. If we are serious about tackling inequality, we must be serious about tackling the wasted opportunities we see before us. In Wales, 92,000 children are growing up in households where no one works, and 200,000 people in Wales are yet to work a day in their lives. That is the result not of this Government’s policies but of years of failing to stand up to the problems of dependency and the decline of work incentives. I make no apologies for the fact that it is this Government who are taking this once-in-a-generation opportunity to embrace welfare reform.
	The Labour party championed welfare reform 20 years ago. Where have all the Labour party’s welfare reformers gone? Labour MPs 20 years ago were among the first to recognise the problems of dependency and the decline of work incentives that were emerging in our welfare system, but these days no one on the Opposition Benches speaks up for people caught in welfare traps. Instead, they turn poverty into a political football. They have opposed every sensible measure that we have put in place to restore fairness and opportunity to our welfare system.

Russell Brown: rose—

Stephen Crabb: I will not give way.
	This Government are working for a recovery that benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. We recognise that there are specific challenges for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland—challenges for devolution but also the long-standing economic challenges that these parts of the UK have borne. Devolution provides the best of both worlds. Strong devolved legislatures ensure that key decisions are taken closest to those
	affected, but so too can this Parliament make decisions in the shared interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution settlements are flexible. We have seen this most recently with the Scotland Act 2012; the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, currently in the House of Lords; and, most recently, the draft Wales Bill, currently being scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	I am sure that we will hear more today about Labour Members’ apparent position on the proposals to devolve an element of taxation to the Welsh Government in Cardiff. Previously they seemed to be supporting the consensus on the Silk commission’s proposals, but, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr rightly highlighted, since a week ago they seem to have reneged on that cross-party agreement and are now full speed in reverse in trying to backtrack and ditch the proposals.
	Before I conclude, it is only right that I focus briefly on the situation in Wales as part of the broader devolution settlement. There has been much positive economic news for Wales. Over the past year, the employment rate has increased by more than in any other region. The number of unemployed people has fallen by 24,000 since the election—it is down by 12,000 only in the last quarter —and the number of economically inactive people in Wales has never been lower. The majority of jobs created in the past year were full-time. The number of people in part-time work who want full-time work is only 18%, and through growing the economy we can help those 18% to find the full-time work they want. A positive future for Wales has been set out by the Silk commission, whose work I praise. The Government have responded to part 2 of its work by bringing forward ambitious proposals in the draft Wales Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and his party have welcomed the moves towards greater devolution for Wales. There are of course areas on which we do not agree, but we have at least set out a positive vision for Wales that we share on this issue.
	By contrast, Labour Members in Westminster seem to be suffering from a complete lack of vision for the future of Wales and its part in the UK and seem to have run out of steam as regards devolution. Rather than embracing the proposals in the draft Wales Bill and the Government’s response to the Silk commission, they have shied away from anything other than borrowing. When they speak, I hope that they will set out their plans for tackling economic inequality, although I am yet to see any evidence from them of such a vision for Wales or beyond.

Angus MacNeil: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I also thank the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for his usual cheer as I start to speak.
	We are having an important debate today. In recent months we have had a number of debates on subjects such as the minimum wage, the bedroom tax, and gender issues. Those are all important debates in themselves, but they are also, if I might be so bold, symptoms of a bigger issue that is afflicting our society and other societies—inequality and unfairness. In many ways, this debate has
	been screaming out to be had, especially in recent times as people are waking up to how things are arranged in our society or societies.
	Yesterday, a commission headed by Church of England bishop, Dr John Sentamu, published a thoughtful report on the problem of working for poverty wages in the UK. Much has been written on this subject by eminent Nobel-winning academics and economists. Last week, when we realised that this debate was going to happen, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said that he was going to play word bingo during my speech and had chosen the word “Stiglitz”. I suppose that many of my thoughts and much of my further outrage on this issue have been ignited by Joe Stiglitz, and that propelled the idea for this debate. I would hope to do him justice, but I know I will not, so I recommend reading his book, “The Price of Inequality”, available on anybody’s Kindle app for £5—or, indeed, Paul Krugman’s “End This Depression Now!” Another interesting book I have seen but not read is “The Cost of Inequality: Why Economic Equality is Essential for Recovery” by Stewart Lansley. Perhaps the aim of economic equality is too far away, but certainly the aim of reducing inequality should be uppermost in all our minds; indeed, I think we shall see that it is becoming so.

Gregg McClymont: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on how his proposal to cut corporation tax for the biggest businesses in Scotland will reduce inequality?

Angus MacNeil: It is quite simple—if we start to create jobs and opportunities for people, we will reduce inequality. I would certainly not be in the position of one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who said last week:
	“If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 467.]
	It does not seem to matter whether we can cure poverty—Labour Members would still be against independence because they have made careers talking about it, and handsome careers at that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s call for lower tax rates. Has he now become a tartan Tory?

Angus MacNeil: Devil the fear, as my old Irish mother would have said, devil the fear—no chance at all. I think the hon. Gentleman will see, as he pays more attention to the words to come, that the only Tories on this side of the House are probably the red Tories.
	I listed the books I mentioned earlier for a reason. We must be aware that we do not have to reinvent the wheel to get people more opportunities and chances in life. Much of the research and science has been done, and the information has been gathered. Perhaps if we stopped, looked and learned from what is around us we would stop falling into the same traps that different generations have fallen into. Why should inequality matter—why is it important? Is it merely because a number of influential professors with Nobel prizes have written books? I would contend that they have put intellectual bones on our instinctive emotions of sympathy and empathy for our fellow people when we see them in situations that
	disturb us and we think are wrong. This is why nations have international aid budgets and why we give to charity. Sometimes it can be argued that the money is not always best directed, but nevertheless it is useful in the main. It shows an underlying striving for fairness and is a reproach against inequality within the broad set of people.
	My first engagement with the idea of inequality was in the religious education class in Craigston primary school at the age of seven or eight, or perhaps even six, with Mrs MacCormick, God bless her. Looking back, I often think that we were really doing philosophy classes rather than RE classes. The example given was this: “If you’re given a box of chocolates at home would it be best to eat them all yourself or share them with your brothers and sisters who have not been given any chocolates?” I have to say that this scenario created a tension in my mind given my great love of chocolates. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have so much a sweet tooth as a whole set of sweet teeth. I was caught in the tension between doing what was manifestly right and what I really wanted to do on another level. The consensus quickly grew in the class that it was best to share—even among six, seven or eight-year-olds. I am pleased to see you nodding in agreement, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not nodding in agreement; I was just wondering whether there were inequalities within the chocolates.

Angus MacNeil: Very good, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	It is a slight concern of mine, however, that the captains of industry, as they get called, or the high-bonus City bankers or hedge fund managers, have never had that experience at a young age and have not engaged meaningfully with sympathy for the situation that others may be in as they gobble all the chocolates of productivity that our economy has produced, believing instead that they are self-made men and self-made women who worship their own creators.

Richard Fuller: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from his Milk Tray doctrine of equality, will he accept that very many of us do learn those lessons in school and do not necessarily need the Government to act for us to fulfil our responsibilities as individuals? What would he say about considering ways to exhort people who have wealth, regardless of the taxes they pay, to give more to others?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is laudable, and I understand what he says, but I disagree. The consensus post the great depression of the 1930s showed the importance of regulation, and that lesson was probably forgotten by the 1980s in the era of the Reagan-Thatcher deregulation that led up to the precipitous problems that finally exploded six years ago. In the absence of regulation, people have to look into their own hearts, but sometimes we can spend far too long doing that. The rule of politics, Parliament and Government is to ensure that we have the structures whereby all can benefit and they are not just dependent on the whim of
	some well-meaning individuals who may be a minority among the wealthy and could direct their contribution in the wrong way.
	Before I get to the body of my speech, I have a final example of something that I think informs the human condition, namely the observations of anthropologists on hunter-gatherer societies. I hope this will also inform the debate, because I think that inequality is essentially about human choices—perhaps even bias—whether they be conscious or subconscious.
	Anthropologists note that hunter-gatherer bands did two main things: they hunted and they gathered, hence, of course, the name—there is no need to be a Nobel prize winner to spot that. The crucial observation is that they treated the products of the hunt and the gather very differently. The products of the hunt were shared out almost instinctively, with many people who might not even have been on the hunt getting a share. Anthropologists explain this as the sharing of luck and good fortune, with those on the hunt realising that they might not have had a successful hunt in different circumstances and that, given the way in which the society of the day was arranged, they might earn the good will of others who might be lucky on another day.
	That sharing, however, was not mirrored in the gather, and anthropologists reckon that that was due to the labour and endeavours of the individual graft and application of the gather.

Caroline Lucas: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s exposition of hunters and gatherers. I wonder whether it could lead us to a discussion about access to ownership of land. Does he share my concern that very little has been done by successive Governments to address the inequality that arises from the fact that the richest 0.6% of the population own 46% of the UK’s land? Will he join me and others—indeed, this applied to Winston Churchill—who support a system of progressive land value taxation as a much fairer way of taxing land than council tax and business rates?

Angus MacNeil: I hear what the hon. Lady says. I am tempted to go down the route of the argument about the taxation of land and labour. I hope the hon. Member for North East Somerset agrees that it has many merits and that he will move a little closer to me on the left wing as a result.

Gemma Doyle: On taxation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 50p tax rate should be brought back, and would he support it in a separate Scotland?

Angus MacNeil: I have two points to make in response to that. First, when the 50p tax rate was abolished, Members from Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and a number of other minority parties—as they are termed in this place, even though we, of course, are the only majority Government on these islands—went through the Lobby to oppose the cut. If memory serves me right, Labour Members sat on their hands and did not do so.
	Secondly, I would support the return of the 50p rate on the basis of need and argument. I understand that the UK Labour party is suggesting an increase to 50p for a short fixed term, probably because of the level of
	the UK deficit, but the Scottish deficit is at a different level. Is the increase necessary in the UK because of economic circumstances—that is one argument—or is the hon. Lady saying that a 50p rate is Labour policy for ever?

Gemma Doyle: I am happy to clarify that the question was whether the hon. Gentleman supports the 50p tax rate.

Angus MacNeil: We voted against its abolition. It would not have gone—we would have the 50p tax rate right now—if the hon. Lady and many others had joined us in the Lobby. The question is: why did she and her colleagues not go through the Lobby to vote against the cut? Where were Labour Members that night? There was no sign of them. Would anybody from the Labour party care to tell me why they did not vote against the cut to the 50p tax rate? I would be very pleased to hear why not. Will one of the about 20 Members on the Labour Benches please stand and explain why Labour did not oppose the cut to the 50p tax rate? Going once, going twice, gone: Labour has refused to explain.

Pete Wishart: I remember that evening very well. To call Labour Members headless chickens would be an affront to headless chickenry, given the way they were running around. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps it was a principled abstention that the Labour party pursued that evening on the 50p tax rate?

Angus MacNeil: Well, a principled abstention by the Labour party is news to me, but I take on board what my hon. Friend says.
	I was talking about hunter-gathering. I was not so much hunting Labour Members as asking why they did not go through the Lobby on the 50p tax rate. I was discussing why people have certain outlooks in life. I think that when people view the fruits of their success as being the result of a hunt that involved a great deal of good fortune and support, they might have a tendency to be slightly more left wing, whereas those who think the fruits are the result of their own individual hard graft might have a tendency to be more right wing and view their gains as a gather. I will make no further judgment on that idea—I just want to put it out there and let people chew it over—but I think there is something deep-seated in our own personal biases as to why we arrive at certain points of view.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: It would be a great pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell us why Labour did not vote against the cut to the 50p tax rate.

Michael Connarty: I would be quite willing to brief the hon. Gentleman later about the technicalities of why the vote was not called on that particular night.
	The hon. Gentleman is talking about a sociological analysis, but some people have moved on since then and done a socialist analysis. When society is divided into those who support capital and those who support labour, what happens is that the forces of those who have the
	power in the land—the landed classes—join with the merchant class to support capital, and they have succeeded in increasing the value of capital by driving down the cost of labour. That is why we have the inequality we have, and that is the structure of the society we—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is very good to have a lecture, but not during an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye later, I am sure he will be able to do so and give me a lecture then.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting intervention. As an MP for a left-of-centre party—sadly, the hon. Member for North East Somerset is no longer in his place to hear this—I am asking how it is possible that our society and, indeed, many other societies, particularly in the English-speaking world, can tolerate inequality, which has now grown to levels beyond those of the 1920s. Has something primitive been transmitted to our minds through the media? The belief that the poor are poor because they are undeserving and have not worked hard enough is a primitive thought. People have to be helped, because we are complex creatures living together in society. People have deep psychological needs and some can suffer from the paralysis of feeling swamped or depressed when they feel stuck or trapped.
	Yesterday’s report by the Living Wage Commission, “Working for Poverty”, looked into the scale and problem of low pay and working poverty in the UK. The first shocking statistic I stumbled on came from the work of the Resolution Foundation, which had tracked low-paid workers for a decade between 2002 and 2012. Despite working for a decade, only 18% of those people had managed to escape low pay in that 10-year stretch. In other words, people in low pay had a four in five chance of remaining there.
	The report further notes:
	“1.3 million employees remained stuck in low pay for the subsequent decade, and a further 2.2 million workers held higher paid jobs but returned to low paid jobs by the end of the decade.”
	That is and should be depressing. Imagine the feelings of the people we eyeball who have been living with that reality on a daily basis for a decade.
	There is good news and bad news. Over the past decades, the wealth of this and other countries in the west has grown as productivity has increased. The bad news is that the fruits of that productivity have been disproportionately distributed. According to the BBC’s wealth gap analysis, as the wealth pie grew and there was more to slice up, many people got roughly the same slice of the pie while others took a share that would embarrass a lion.
	Between 1997 and 2007, the income of the top 0.1% grew by 82% to an average of £1.179 million annually; the top 0.5% saw an increase of 66.5% to an average of £452,000 annually; and the top 1%, which, of course, includes the previous two groups, saw their income rise by 60%, but their rise was only about a quarter of that of the 0.1%.
	Meanwhile, between 1997 and 2007—the happy decade, as some in financial circles call it, before the crash of six years ago—the bottom 90%, which includes most of society, saw their wages rise by only 17%, a disproportionate slice of the economic pie. Another way of looking at it
	is that the fraction of pay the bottom 90% were getting in comparison with the top 1% had fallen by a fifth over that decade. As Professor Stiglitz says:
	“A corporate CEO will not exert less effort to make the company work well simply because his take-home pay is $10 million a year rather than $12 million.”
	The “Working for Poverty” report contains a series of nuggets and goes fearlessly into some thought-provoking factors.

Iain McKenzie: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned poverty and how to tackle it, which is welcome, but can he explain why the SNP Government in Edinburgh have taken £1.2 billion out of anti-poverty programmes since 2008?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will find that the efforts of the SNP have been very laudable in Scotland, with unemployment and youth unemployment lower than in the rest of the UK. The SNP Government have done all they can. He should realise that the Government in Edinburgh are in a financial straitjacket set by the philosophies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in London. If the hon. Gentleman really wanted to tackle such issues, he would free himself from that straitjacket, and the SNP or whichever party was in government in Edinburgh would be fully accountable, rather than held within the straitjacket of another Government’s philosophy with which we disagree. Does he want to intervene again?

Iain McKenzie: indicated dissent.

Angus MacNeil: No, the hon. Gentleman is very happy.

Gregg McClymont: Can the Scottish Government not spend the block grant in any way they see fit?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: the Scottish Government can do so, but they have to balance the budget. In fact, although John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, balances it every year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra expenditure, he knows full well that, under the devolution settlement, he must explain what he will cut. It is, “Want, want, want,” but he has not made any suggestions about what he will cut.

Michael Weir: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that although funds for fuel poverty programmes have all been slashed down here, they have continued to be invested in Scotland; that child poverty in Scotland is now lower than in the UK as a whole; and that, worst of all from the Scottish Parliament’s point of view, one of the drivers of poverty is the welfare changes controlled by this Parliament, not by the Scottish Parliament?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We can see that again in the philosophy behind the bedroom tax, which is not one that I subscribe to in any way. Last night, I stumbled across a Channel 4 programme on Walsall and Glasgow housing authorities. It talked about having to demolish houses in Walsall, due to their being left empty: people cannot stay in them because of their cost and what people have lost in welfare. Glasgow housing authority has demand for 1,500 more one-bedroom properties—people want them so that they will not be
	penalised—but it does not have them. It is, inefficiently, trying to build them so that people can avoid the bedroom tax, but the costs are colossal.

Pete Wishart: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend’s fantastic speech, but perhaps I can help him a little. We know a bit about what the Labour party proposes to do with the Scottish budget because of the cuts commission. It intends to do away with universal benefits and it does not like free bus passes and free prescriptions. That is what it would do if it gets control of the levers of power in the Scottish Parliament. We know exactly where it is going with its cuts commission.

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Johann Lamont has a cuts commission. [Interruption.] I hear from the Labour Front Bench that she does not have a cuts commission, which is another example of how Labour Scottish Members say one thing while Labour in Scotland says another. If Labour Front Benchers want to tell us what Johann Lamont is doing—if she has told them—they are more than welcome to intervene.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why £1 billion has been removed from anti-poverty programmes since 2008 under his Government? Perhaps that might paint a clearer picture.

Angus MacNeil: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand at the Dispatch Box to tell us what Johann Lamont is thinking about the cuts commission, but he failed to do that.

Stewart Hosie: There is a lot of deflection going on. The Labour party has said that nothing is off the table, which might mean £9,000 per child per year to go to university, a return to a tax on ill health with charge-free prescriptions going and all that. In his heart, does my hon. Friend not agree that this is ideological: the British Labour party thinks that we are part of a something-for-nothing society, when all we are doing is caring for those most in need?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend puts it very well: we are caring for those in need. Our hearts should go out to those needing help, and we should not be thought of as part of a something-for-nothing society.

Gemma Doyle: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much less money there would be to spend on public services in Scotland if his party gets its way and cuts tax for big business?

Angus MacNeil: If my party gets its way, there will be more money for services in Scotland, because our fiscal position is far better than the UK’s and our deficit per capita is lower. If we become independent, we can do a lot more to help. I hope that the hon. Lady does not hold the position of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood). Last Thursday, he told us:
	“If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 467.]
	If by becoming independent we can fight poverty, will the hon. Lady support independence?

Jimmy Hood: I am quite amazed that the hon. Gentleman is surprised that I and many other hon. Members are against his nationalism. To put my comment last week in context, I said that despite the lying of the SNP Government and the Westminster Government here, I would not support nationalism and would therefore vote against his Government. He should not be surprised, because I have always opposed nationalism. I always will oppose nationalism, because I do not make judgments about people on the basis of the side of the road or the side of the bed they were born on.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has got the message across.

Angus MacNeil: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, but I am surprised that he says he is against nationalism, because we live in nations. That is why we have the United Nations of about 193 nations. I am not sure exactly what structure he favours. Is he is in favour of the abolition of the Parliament in Westminster and of the UK state?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. I will be helpful: we have had a good debate about chocolates, and I want to get back to inequality. I certainly do not want to get bogged down in the rights and wrongs of abolition. I know that he is desperate to finish his speech on inequalities, and I am desperate to hear it.

Angus MacNeil: My speech is about making lives better for people wherever they are from and wherever they are worldwide. That is the important point to bear in mind.
	The “Working for Poverty” report even touches on the untouchables of our society—football clubs. It states:
	“Research from Citizens UK shows it would take a full-time cleaner 13 years to earn what top footballers earn in a week. Football clubs are important institutions in communities across the UK. They should be setting an example to employers nationwide.”
	I must praise the columnist for The Observer Kevin McKenna who, like me, is a supporter of Celtic football club in Glasgow, the richest team in Scotland. Sadly, a few months ago, Celtic refused to pay the living wage to all its staff at the ground. It turned Mr McKenna’s stomach that those subject to such wage inequality could rub along, shoulder to shoulder, with people earning tens of thousands of pounds a week. That has also turned the stomachs of many football fans, especially given that Celtic had cashed in on the story of Brother Walfrid, a Marist brother who now lies at rest in Dumfries, who started Celtic as a means to help the poor of the Glasgow east end in the 1880s. I do not mean to single out Celtic, but to give an example of the toleration of those in even rich organisations for the shocking pay levels given to people the whites of whose eyes they see daily. Frankly, it removes the shine, lustre and glitz from the big football clubs of our land when we realise that gritty reality and see it up close.

Lorely Burt: I have every sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but what is his party’s policy on tackling the scourge of overpaid football players?

Angus MacNeil: I must tell the hon. Lady that, to be absolutely honest, I have not considered that question politically. [Interruption.] Labour Members are mocking, but they would, because they probably have no response. If they have one, they are more than welcome to intervene. If the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) wants to limit the pay of top footballers, he can jump up to the Dispatch Box and tell us how. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) addresses a point that we should look at and think about in our society, since it is one of the jarring unfairnesses and inequalities. People working together shoulder to shoulder with such massive disparities sums up what is happening in our society.
	In the report “Working for Poverty”, Dr John Sentamu’s foreword starts with a nugget from the CBI director-general John Cridland, who said that there are
	“still far too many people stuck in minimum wage jobs without routes to progression…and that’s a serious challenge that business and government must address.”
	I again praise the Archbishop of York for saying elsewhere in his report that business itself has to step up to the plate and make sure that people are getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but praise is due to John Cridland also, for his remarks at the outset of the report.
	Making work pay is important—very important. The UK taxpayer is paying a staggering £3 billion to £6 billion to cover the costs of inadequate pay, which affects a colossal 5.24 million workers—an increase of 400,000 in the past 12 months alone. That is welfare on a sadly grand scale, for which we should not be asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.
	The report notes that the prices of everyday items have risen faster than prices of other goods. Food costs 44% more than in 2005 and energy costs have more than doubled. On the bright side, it notes that vehicle costs have remained stable and the cost of audiovisual equipment has halved. In more serious terms, the report notes that children of parents on low pay are less likely to achieve in school compared with their peers at every stage of their childhood education. A living wage employee gets nearly double the amount of family time in a typical working week as someone on the national minimum wage—a subject I shall return to later in my speech.
	The report lays out more correctly the problem in the gains of productivity and their distribution, noting that the arrangements are such that economic growth alone will not necessarily solve Britain’s low pay crisis. Unlike the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I think the Government have a role to play; it is not just a matter for well-meaning individuals. Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz observe that low pay takes demand out of the economy, as the people circulating money in the economy are those who are on low pay. There is even an argument that higher unemployment benefit is an economic multiplier, in that the money that goes into recipients’ pockets circulates more quickly.

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Gentleman is being generous. He mentions the opinions of Professor Joseph Stiglitz. Is he aware of another of Professor Stiglitz’s comments:
	“Some of you have been told that lowering tax rates on corporations will lead to more investment. The fact is that’s not true. It is just a gift to the corporations increasing inequality in our society.”?
	Will he reconsider his position on corporation tax?

Angus MacNeil: Had the hon. Lady been in Parliament when Labour were in power and seen what her party did in that period, she might be less bold. We have to look at what is good for Scotland and what we can do to create opportunity and employment in Scotland, and I will not resile or shy away from that in any way, shape or form.
	The contention is that money is not circulating. That is why some years ago we had a fiscal stimulus and why we have had quantitative easing. My problem with QE is that it has not been aimed at the demand recovery for which Stiglitz and Krugman would look; instead, in the opinion of many, it is propping up financial institutions. I note that, at one time, Ben Bernanke suggested that the way to return demand to Japan 20 years ago, when the country was experiencing stagflation, was to take a helicopter full of yen notes and fly above Japanese cities shovelling them out. That is certainly one way to return demand to the economy, but of course serious voices would recoil at the idea and not allow it to happen. There are some answers in economics, however, that are counter-intuitive to many of the things we naturally feel and do daily. We should not be afraid of looking at some of the other, more grounded, ideas, but I fear that a Government who have chosen the cult of austerity over the pursuit of growth are unlikely to look imaginatively at what they can do for the economy—they certainly have not done so in the past three years.
	Growth in productivity has not been matched by growth in wages. The “Working for Poverty” report notes that
	“Wages and economic output began to decouple in 2003, five years before the onset of the financial crisis. Real average wages have grown by 13% since 1999, whereas economic output”—
	that is, productivity—
	“has risen by four times this rate.”
	That means again that economic growth alone will not solve Britain’s low pay crisis. The Government should set up a commission of inquiry into poverty and inequality, as we call for in the motion, to look at how we can improve the lives of citizens—people we see daily; people we perhaps knew in school, or relatives; people who live in our communities. They should not be left behind, with only 18% escaping low pay over a decade, as we heard earlier. In a further example, the report notes that
	“Productivity growth and median pay began to decouple in the 1980s and median hourly earnings have failed to keep pace with the average value of output that workers produce.”
	I am heartened to know that even the Prime Minister supports the living wage, saying that where companies can afford to pay the living wage, they should. A living wage is only £7.65 an hour—that is the figure mentioned in the White Paper for independence and in the “Working for Poverty” report. That is only £306 for a 40-hour week or about £16,000 per annum—not a king’s ransom by any means. We should remember that the minimum wage is £6.31 an hour, so it takes an increase of only £1.34 an hour to get to the living wage. I praise the Prime Minister for what he said, but while he apparently sees the justice and wisdom of the measure, as a politician in charge of a Government, he is doing nothing about it. We should realise that life is short, life in politics is shorter, and life in power is shortest of all, so Governments should take the opportunity when they have power to do a lot to improve the lives of the people they govern.
	Some of this debate is mere dry statistics. We should look at some of the human stories in the “Working for Poverty” report—the accounts of normal, decent people across the countries who are trying to earn an honest living in a state, the UK, that does not value all its citizens fairly. Their stories should be heard and understood; they inform the debate and help to remove the dryness of the statistics.

Stewart Hosie: Very generously indeed, my hon. Friend has praised the Prime Minister, who at least wants to do something about the minimum wage, but is it not disappointing when the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was answering questions about the living wage, she said, even though it is £7.65 in Scotland and £8.80, that it was “too difficult to calculate”? Is not that a rather bizarre position for the UK Government to take, given that we already know what the figures are?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend puts it very well indeed. I do not think any more needs to be said.
	Case study 1 in the interim report from the Living Wage Commission is Paul’s story. The report tells us that
	“Paul is a support worker in the care sector in the North West of England. His partner is a youth worker in the youth justice sector for the local Borough Council. They have a sixteen year old daughter and are both paid below the Living Wage.”
	Paul says:
	“I started work for my current employer in 2009 and have never been given a pay rise. During this time I have experienced a palpable leap in the cost of living. My wife started her employment in 2010 and she has witnessed a drop in the amount of money she is paid for her considerable and anti-social working hours.
	We are both working full-time, living in local housing association rented accommodation and we are always struggling to pay our way. We have no luxuries, we have not been on holiday and we do not socialise. We work, eat and sleep. There are no extra benefits we can claim to help us. There is little we can hope to do but keep on working in the hope that we will eventually see some ‘light at the end of the tunnel’.
	I have juggled our debt as best as I am able to. I have moved some debt onto zero interest credit cards which have given us an 18 month window to clear some debt without accruing the hefty interest charges which would be crippling.
	We are substantially in arrears with the rental of our home. The landlord is attempting to negotiate a payment plan to help us to manage this debt. We avoid doing so to enable us to more flexibly manage our debt. One week we can pay a little off our rental debt but the next we must buy food and fuel, pay outstanding vets bills, and more besides.
	We often spend days apart. This is due to my low pay and the need for me to do sleep-in duties as a carer to garner something like a liveable income. We can often only communicate through rushed text messages and leaving voicemails for each other. Our sixteen year old daughter misses us both greatly. We did not even have a day out together as a family in 2013.”
	That one story crystallises in many ways the nub of today’s debate. I am grateful to the Archbishop of York for his report and for setting out people’s experiences. Perhaps the saddest line in that quotation is:
	“We work, eat and sleep”.
	It is shocking that the citizens of a first-world, G7 country are living in that way.
	Government Members often talk about the importance of family as a building block of society. I would argue that the living wage benefits and reinforces families. To take home the same wage that an employee on the living
	wage would receive for a typical 37.5 hour week, minimum wage earners would have to work 52.3 hours a week in London or 45.5 hours a week outside London. In a typical Monday-to-Friday working week, that is equivalent to working 10.5 hours a day in London or 9.1 hours a day outside London. That rises to 11.5 hours for London or 10.1 hours outside London if we include an hour’s lunch break.
	A worker who does a Monday-to-Friday job in London on the national minimum wage, who gets the Government’s recommended amount of sleep each night and who has an average commute therefore gets only three hours and 45 minutes to spend as they wish in each week day. The same employee would get six hours and 45 minutes of time each day if they were paid the living wage. That is an extra three hours a day or almost double the time that a minimum wage worker has to spend with their family or to do anything else that they want to do. That shows how those in low-paid jobs have little work-life balance and have to sacrifice the time that they spend with their children or on social engagement. That can lead to other problems further down the line. If ever there was an example of what an additional £1.43 an hour could bring, that is it.
	When we hear people using the family as a political argument in future, it must be backed up by some economic and legislative muscle in order that people have a decent wage and a decent start in life. The most important point to make is that the people we are discussing are working—they are the working poor. They work long hours to do what they can for themselves and their families, yet they are unable to participate properly in society.
	It is a damning indictment of all of us in this House that we have tolerated the emergence of such a reality in our midst over the past few decades. Although I am only 43, all of us have a responsibility for that. We have a responsibility to speak out about it. That is why we are having this debate. I hope that the Government will listen and will bring forward a commission of inquiry on inequality and poverty, because those issues blight the lives of far too many people. It should simply be stopped.

Jonathan Edwards: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the lack of interest in this policy agenda, which is demonstrated by the number of Members who have put their names forward to speak in this debate? The Westminster parties do not care and just do not get it.

Angus MacNeil: It is disappointing that more Members have not engaged in the issues of poverty and inequality. Cynics would say that if this were a debate on Members’ pay, conditions and benefits or any other reform of the House of Commons, the Benches would be full. Alas, we are debating a topic far removed from that. That is why I have tried to humanise the debate.
	I was not going to read Becca’s story from the Living Wage Commission, but it is a cracker of a story. The report states that she
	“lives in Leeds and has worked in minimum wage jobs since she was a teenager. Now in her thirties, she has a degree and wants to start up her own business, but she can not find the money or the time.”
	She says:
	“I have pretty much always worked for minimum wage. I worked in an office photocopying for two years, I have worked in customer service, I once sat watching a TV screen and counting cars on clickers. I’ve done all sorts.”
	That is another example of a person who is trying to better herself, but who is—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have a good feel for the examples, as, I am sure, does the House. This should be the hon. Gentleman’s speech, not just a speech full of examples from other people. I have allowed a few examples to go, but I have heard enough for now. I want to hear from the hon. Gentleman, rather than other people.

Angus MacNeil: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is because of my modesty and kindness that I want to share the wisdom of others. I do not see myself as the sole well of wisdom. [Interruption.] “Thankfully,” say my SNP colleagues.
	We have to consider how poverty and inequality are affecting young people. I spoke to a young person recently who said, “It’s difficult being young. Houses are expensive. We have tons of student debt. The costs of living are rising and wages don’t go up. It’s sort of tough being young at the moment.” That young person was right. I was at university when student loans came in. I followed a demonstration against student loans that was led by a student who later became an MP. I later saw him on television backing Labour’s introduction of tuition fees in 1998. I cannot remember his constituency.
	There has been a sharp rise in the number of 24 to 34-year-olds who are living at home with their parents. As Joe Stiglitz said, that is not due to a rush of filial devotion, but because they have no choice. The economic cards are stacked against them. Youth unemployment is high in many countries. It is too high in Scotland and higher still in the UK as a whole. Instead of getting on with their lives, the young find themselves in a holding pattern.
	The SNP has done what it can in Scotland by keeping tuition fees at zero, which is saving families from paying £36,000 for a four-year degree. Families risk having to pay that if we vote no to independence. We know that there are cuts down the line and some people think that this is a something-for-nothing society and that certain things should be taken off the table. We do what we can with the powers that we have, but we want to do so much more.
	An exciting proposal in the White Paper that will tackle inequality is to follow Sweden’s example on child care. Parents of early-years children in the UK face the highest child care costs in Europe. Parents in Scotland spend about 27% of household income on child care, compared with the OECD average of 12%. Independence would give us the opportunity to make transformational changes to the way in which Scotland provides child care services. That will allow women, in particular, to work without worrying about the cost of looking after their children. With independence, the benefits of their work, such as economic growth and tax revenue, will stay in Scotland and contribute to the costs of child care provision.
	The Scottish Government plan to have a universal system of high-quality early learning and child care from the age of one up to school entry. At the end of the first year of an independent Scottish Parliament, every three and four-year-old and vulnerable two-year-old will be entitled to 1,140 hours of child care. That is the same amount of time as children spend in primary school each year and is equivalent to 30 hours per week over 38 weeks. That is an important aspiration. It demonstrates one way in which we should be moving our society forward. It would certainly be a way to reduce inequality.
	It has been argued that inequality has caused the rise in household debt because people try to keep up with the Joneses. There are more pernicious examples of what inequality can do. Professor Paul Krugman states:
	“Before the financial crisis of 2008 struck, I would often give talks to lay audiences about income inequality, in which I would point out that top income shares had risen to levels not seen since 1929. Invariably there would be questions about whether that meant that we were on the verge of another Great Depression—and I would declare that this wasn’t necessarily so”.
	In the end, it turned out that that was the case. Once again, we are not arresting the growth in inequality. Are we on the verge of repeating the same mistake? I wish that we would learn, but we seem not to be doing so.
	Some voices in the world are talking about inequality. Yesterday, the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, made a speech about tackling inequality in New York. My only criticism is that, when one looks at the detail, it is quite timid. The Pope has said:
	“The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor.”
	The church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland addresses that issue frequently and, as I said, the Church of England’s Archbishop of York has also done great work. A number of US Senators are aware of the problems and what is happening.
	In my view, Governments should concentrate on growth and jobs. The deficit obsession and austerity cult has taken demand from the economy and probably led to a slower recovery—we have probably lost years as a result of the policies that were followed. We cannot fully prove that because we do not have a controlled environment in which to do so scientifically, but the feeling among many economists is that growth has not returned as strongly as it should have done, and that when it did come back it was three years delayed.
	We are in food-bank Britain; we have the bedroom tax hammering people. VAT, one of the most regressive taxes, has been increased to 20% in this Parliament. That is a real shame and something that hits people disproportionately. We have had the cut to the 50p tax rate. That probably cost £4 billion to £5 billion in revenues, although the Commons Library has stated that behaviour alteration should mean that it will cost only £0.5 billion. Only £0.5 billion? That means that the cut to the 50p rate of tax has cost the Exchequer and not raised any extra revenue.
	In the debate last Thursday—I am coming to a conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was sad that many of those Members who had the opportunity to speak in
	a very time-limited debate made no real mention of the future, and there was no mention at all of poverty. Unfortunately, we seem to have made a god of money, and we treat those who do not get hold of it as somehow inferior beings. In fact, as somebody once remarked, the cure for cancer might well be found in a child living in a poor household. They should be given a helping hand and an opportunity for their future because—who knows?—they could help us some day.
	I have a couple of final reflections. It was said of Nelson Mandela that he not only liberated the blacks in South Africa, but also the oppressors. When I look at inequality I see, of course, great insecurity at the bottom, but I also see insecurity at the top. People realise that when the safety nets are removed, they themselves are a step or an accident or two away from going down. If those people do not have a society with safety nets in place for their own security, they can never fully relax. They need to get more and gather more because—who knows?—they, a relative or a friend might need it.
	That struck me very strongly when I was at Alabama state university on an exchange programme with a US Congressman and we went to see a game of American football. We were taken to the president’s box of the university, and there were people who had made it in life. I met a man from Leeds, but it struck me that despite having made it, the talk was all about health insurance, health care, and what sort of plan people had—conversations we do not have in this country. In reality, there was deep insecurity because the social nets were not there to help everybody. When the nets are not there for the poorest and most vulnerable, we, our friends, our relatives, the relatives of relatives and friends of friends, are all but one step away. It is not a nice situation to be in, and I could see the fear in the whites of their eyes. Even though they personally had made it in society, there was massive insecurity around them.
	Just as Nelson Mandela liberated the blacks and the oppressors, so too does the arresting of inequality liberate the poor and the rich—not quite in equal measure, but it certainly liberates them both from the insecurity that inequality brings to us all. We should work to get rid of inequality, and I hope that when we have independence, we can prove that one of the best ways of fighting inequality and poverty is through the prosperity that I expect we shall bring to Scotland.

Guto Bebb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). In 1979 I spent a fantastic summer holiday on the Isle of Barra—something that I have promised my children I will repeat at some point.

Angus MacNeil: You’re very welcome to come back.

Guto Bebb: Thank you.
	This has been an interesting and passionate debate thus far, but I would like to pick up on a few points made by the hon. Gentleman about the minimum wage. Members across the House will share the aspiration to increase the minimum wage, but to accuse the Prime Minister of inaction when he has simply stated a need to consider the facts is slightly unfair. On Friday, I met a number of constituents who run small hotels in my constituency. Not a single one of those six businesses
	had posted a profit in excess of £15,000 for the past three years, yet they all employed people and each paid slightly above the minimum wage. They want to do the right thing and retain their staff, but when talking about prosperity and creating jobs, we must ensure that anything we do with the minimum wage does not destroy the very thing that helps people out of poverty, which is having a job.

Lorely Burt: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the minimum wage, but is he aware that were the Government to adopt the Liberal Democrat policy of increasing the threshold at which people start to pay tax to the minimum wage, that would achieve the living wage?

Guto Bebb: There is certainly an argument that to increase the minimum wage when, as things currently stand, the Government have already taken tax out of the minimum wage, would look as if they were kicking businesses for the sake of kicking them. I have supported the fact that the Government have increased the personal allowance dramatically, which has made work pay for people in many circumstances, but my point is that taking time over a decision is not something we should be ashamed of. Indeed, we should be proud of taking time to make the right decision on something that is so important for a constituency such as mine, where 27% of the working population are either self-employed or work for small businesses.
	I must take issue with a few points raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) in his opening remarks. He began his speech by talking about Hywel Dda, who was indeed classified as one of the better Welsh kings. I was, however, surprised to hear the hymn of praise to a royalist from an avowed republican. Indeed, in terms of Hywel Dda, or Hywel the Good, being good, perhaps the true title should be Hywel the not-so-good. In addition to being the man who classified and created Welsh law, he also ordered the execution—the murder, I should say—of his brother-in-law in order to take over the kingdom of Dyfed, which is the current constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). Furthermore, so as to extend his kingdom to the north and take over the whole of Wales, he also dispossessed the two sons of Idwal Foel from Gwynedd. When giving examples, I think we must put the man in the context of his time. It is interesting to highlight, however, that the Hywel Dda laws were in many ways ahead of their time in trying to achieve a level of equality between the sexes—not something that we saw in other parts of the United Kingdom for a very long time.
	I also take issue with the comments by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr about a proportional system of electing people leading to greater engagement with the political process. It is an attractive argument, but one that can be rejected simply by looking at the situation in Wales. We have 40 Members of Parliament who are elected on a first-past-the-post basis, and 60 Members elected to the Welsh Assembly, which uses a version of proportional representation. In a constituency such as mine, however, 70% of the electorate—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am a bit worried that we are getting in to a debate on proportional representation. I presume the point is linked to fairness and equality somewhere.

Guto Bebb: I am responding to the initial comments that proportional representation leads to a more involved electorate. I would challenge that because, as I was about to say, in my constituency 70% of constituents turned out in 2010 on a first-past-the-post race, but under a PR system in 2011, the turnout was only 40%. If we want democratic engagement, I argue that the evidence for the hon. Gentleman’s point is not clear.
	Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when trying to ensure full employment in Wales and supporting businesses—all part and parcel of improving equality and job opportunities—we must support our small businesses and ensure that our banks are lending. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made huge strides in trying to ensure that the banks support small businesses, but I accept the arguments about the need for further intervention to support small businesses in Wales.
	I take from the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr an implied rejection of the work of Finance Wales, an organisation which has existed in Wales for a long time and has the purpose of supporting small businesses. In my view, it is a Government-supported way of supporting small businesses. On Friday, however, in my constituency I met a small hi-tech IT company employing 23 people, which had been asked to pay 9% above base to be lent money by Finance Wales. That is the type of behaviour that, if undertaken by the banks, we would be criticising openly. The initiative is supported by the Welsh Labour Government, and they should ask themselves serious questions when small businesses trying to create employment opportunities in my constituency are offered penal rates to borrow money.
	I have some sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. I share his surprise at the behaviour of the Labour party in the Welsh Grand Committee last week. Democratic engagement is part and parcel of the process through which we engage people and tackle inequality. However, the Labour party’s rejection of the entirety of the Silk commission report, with the exception of borrowing powers, should concern us greatly. If we are to create equality, in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole, we should avoid spending more money on debt repayment than we do on education. The only part of the Silk commission report that the Labour party seemed willing to support was more borrowing powers—no surprise, perhaps—but that is a betrayal of the aspirations that those of us on the Government Benches have for the people of Wales.

Angus MacNeil: I have been hearing quite a bit about the Welsh Labour Government’s rejection of more powers going to Wales, but I still cannot find the reason for that. Do they doubt their own abilities of stewardship and governance? Does the hon. Gentleman know why they do not want them?

Guto Bebb: It is not for me to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure whether the proposals were rejected by the Welsh Government. They were certainly rejected by the Labour Front-Bench team in Westminster—a significant difference. Perhaps Labour Members can enlighten us on whether there is a lack of trust between the Westminster team and the Assembly team.
	The motion is wrong-headed in many ways, but its key failure is highlighted in the final sentence, which
	“calls on the Government to halt its further spending and welfare cuts”.
	That tells us that the motion is not serious. It talks about the importance of creating equality and opportunities and supporting people and communities, yet it does not recognise that to have a successful, sustainable economy we cannot carry on borrowing at rates that are unsustainable in the long term. There is nothing moral, fair or reasonable about asking our children and grandchildren to pay for our mistakes. We have a responsibility to future generations not to saddle them with unsustainable debts. We have an ageing population and a demographic problem, nowhere more so than in parts of north Wales that I represent. We face a real challenge to care for the elderly and to ensure that we have a fair pension system. Future generations will have to meet those obligations. In asking them also to meet our inability to take hard decisions, the motion is not a serious one, and it deserves to be rejected.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what the debt to GDP ratio is now—it has risen under this Government, of course—and what it was in 1947, when the NHS was created?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman has made this point on numerous occasions. He is absolutely correct to say that the level of debt has increased under this Government, but for a party that says the level of debt should have increased at an even faster pace, it is hardly reasonable to argue that this Government have therefore failed. It should also be pointed out that we have an NHS that is, rightly, much more expensive and costly than it was in 1948, so that is a false analogy.

Therese Coffey: Dare I say it, but the comment by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) shows that until we balance our books and are in surplus we will never start to pay down debt. His motion contradicts his desire to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.

Guto Bebb: I fully accept and endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important, when we debate public spending and the level of so-called cuts, to bear in mind that we are running a state that is not meeting its obligations. Even in this financial year, we are borrowing £110 billion. We are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. It would be an irresponsible Government who would damage the opportunity for people to have more equality through a willingness to borrow more without any plan to reduce the country’s level of debt.

Angus MacNeil: Is the problem for the Government not that the rush and the desire to attack the deficit has taken the focus away from what they should be doing: returning demand and growth to the economy? To make an equivalence between the national economy and a household budget is wrong-headed in the extreme and has led to the three-year delay in growth. It is leading to the wrong policies and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has had a good day. He has made a lot of interventions and he spoke for almost an hour, so to try to make another speech is unacceptable. A lot of Members want to get in.

Guto Bebb: I reject the hon. Gentleman’s argument. To have more equality, we need more jobs and economic opportunities. The hon. Gentleman argues that that would happen with more Government spending as a proportion of the economy. If that was the case, then Wales would be, by a long stretch, the most successful part of the United Kingdom, because there is no part of the UK more dependent on the public purse. The dependency on public spending in Wales has led to failure not over the past three or four years, but over a 15 to 20-year period. It has not led to economic growth or prosperity, and it has not led to economic opportunities. Indeed, the very reverse is true: the size of the state in Wales is one of the reasons why the rebuilding job being undertaken by the Westminster Government is so important. In a Welsh context, we have created an economy that is unbalanced and has not created the variety of jobs needed to support our young people and ensure that we have an equal society. I argue very strongly that anybody who says that the answer to all economic issues in a Welsh context is more public spending is simply wrong.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guto Bebb: I will try to make a bit of progress.
	The key point to remember is that those who now claim that the economic recovery has been too slow in coming are the exact same people who claimed that unemployment would increase dramatically because of the decisions taken in 2010. They are often the same voices who argued that there could be no growth without public spending, yet in Wales and in the whole of the UK we are seeing a vast increase in private sector employment. We have 1.5 million new private sector jobs, a ratio of almost 4:1 in comparison with the loss of jobs in the public sector. Wales is not an exception. Time and again when this is debated in the Welsh media, we hear people saying that the economic recovery is happening in London and the south-east. That is simply not reflected in the facts. In Wales, unemployment is falling and employment rates are increasing.
	Anyone who is genuine about the opportunities necessary to reduce inequality would welcome the jobs that are being created. What we often hear from the parties on the Opposition Benches, however, is a complaint about the type of jobs being created: that they are not proper jobs and not the type of jobs we should be proud of. That is such a demeaning comment to make to people going out of their way to try to earn their living. I wonder how someone working in a Tesco or an Asda in my constituency feels when they hear a member of the Labour party demeaning a job as nothing more than shelf stacking. Such comments from a party that claims to represent labour are utterly disgraceful. I have made this point to the House previously and I will make it again.
	One of the most moving things I have done as an MP was to visit a Tesco partnership store in Toxteth, in Liverpool. I can tell Members that a visit from a
	Conservative MP from north Wales is not something that happens very often at any store in Liverpool. The Tesco store in Toxteth was the largest inward investment into Toxteth since the riots in 1982. It was Tesco that undertook that investment. Half the staff employed at that store had been unemployed long term—for more than 18 months. The retention rate was more than 94% and the pride they showed in the fact that they were now working for a living was moving—there is no other way of describing it. I met one lady who ran the bakery section and asked whether she would ever want to move on. Her response was, “I’d have to be taken out of here in a box. It has given me my life back.”

Russell Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps I am not in the Chamber as often as I should be—but I have yet to hear any of my colleagues condemn anyone in the retail sector. Those are valued jobs and, as the hon. Gentleman, I and many other colleagues know, working in retail is about much more than serving customers and stacking shelves.

Guto Bebb: I welcome that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who clearly understands the importance of the retail sector. I was talking about comments made on radio and television by members of the Labour party. When I hear those comments I get annoyed as they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the sector provides the individuals in Tesco in Toxteth, or in various businesses in my constituency, with the opportunity to start a career, learn a skill and move on—and I would argue that people need a job to be able to move on to another job. It makes such a difference and those opportunities should not be dismissed by those who earn far too much to appreciate how important it is to earn a living, perhaps for the first time, and, in some cases, to be the first member of a family for a generation to take a job.
	We need to be aware of the fact that the success we are seeing across the UK is being replicated in Wales. In a Welsh economy with relatively low levels of pay, it is even more important that we reduce the tax burden on those individuals. I have heard Opposition Members complain that although it is all very well to reduce people’s tax bills, by increasing the personal allowance tax credits have been reduced. That is not about what is right for the individuals; it represents the significant difference between the Government and Opposition. Government Members want to allow people to keep as much of their earnings as possible, because if a person goes out there and works we should tax them as little as possible. The Opposition were quite happy to tax people earning as little as £6,000 a year and recycle the money through an expensive, well-paid bureaucracy before paying it back to buy a client state. That was the dishonesty of the tax credit policy.

Nia Griffith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his party has introduced measures that have cut the taper on the tax credit system, making it much more severe and causing more difficulties for people? Does he not agree that the only way to reduce the tax credit bill, as tax credits top people up to a decent wage, is to ensure that wages go up through a strong minimum wage and incentivise employers to introduce a living wage?

Guto Bebb: As the hon. Lady knows, as I have already touched on the minimum wage, I believe that it is a complex issue that must be considered carefully. My view
	is that we should carefully consider moving towards a point where we do not need tax credits, as the imperative is to allow people to earn a living and pay as little tax as possible on their earnings. That should be the aspiration.

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend mentions the issues caused for his constituents by the way in which the Labour party dealt with income tax and the tax threshold, but were they not compounded by the removal of the 10p tax rate?

Guto Bebb: It undoubtedly did not help.
	When we discuss inequality we should be aware of the key point that the Government have been very proactive in ensuring that the inequality faced by pensioners is dealt with. We can compare the impact of the triple lock on pensioner poverty with the previous Labour Government’s decision to increase pensions by a paltry 75p.

Brian H Donohoe: Taxation is not just about income tax, but about VAT. Is that not perhaps the most unfair tax on those at the bottom of the pile?

Guto Bebb: I would reject that argument. We talk about VAT, we often forget the exemptions. If somebody is buying a new Ferrari, I have no problem with their paying £50,000 in VAT. If somebody buys their food in a supermarket, they pay 0% in VAT. If VAT were 20% on every single item, it would be a regressive tax. For those who spend a significant proportion of their income on food, or on household fuel, which is taxed at 5% rather than 20%, the VAT issue is not as clear cut as Opposition Members try to make it.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guto Bebb: Not at the moment.
	When we talk about inequality, it is important to recognise that the Government’s work on pensioner benefits has significantly reduced pensioner poverty. We should also recognise that in a country such as Wales, with such a high dependence on self-employment, the Government’s moves to introduce a single-tier state pension will make a huge difference for those who are self-employed and will result in less inequality when people reach retirement.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, who has now, unfortunately, left his seat, said that there was a need for more investment in a Welsh context. Let me be very specific about the situation in Wales. Since 2000 and 2001, the Welsh Government, supported by European structural funding, has invested billions of pounds in so-called initiatives to deal with Wales’s lack of economic progress. When people talk about the need for public sector investment to create wealth and employment opportunities, it is important to consider the case study of how European funding, spent under the guidance of the Welsh Labour Government—and under the Welsh Labour and Plaid Government for four years—was used through so-called interventions that were meant to create employment opportunities and ensure that we had a more equal society. That has failed dramatically and for the entire period of intervention by the Welsh Government and the EU, west Wales and the valleys have gone backwards rather than prospering.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Guto Bebb: Let me finish this point.
	Back in 2000, when the decision was made to apply for objective 1 funding it was argued that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Wales as the GDP of west Wales and the valleys as a percentage of the European average was roughly 74%. As hon. Members will be aware, once that percentage is above 75% the highest level of EU intervention is not available. It was also described as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity because in 2004 all the accession countries from eastern Europe, which had been behind the iron curtain for decades, would become part of the European Union. Lo and behold, in two rounds since 2001 Wales not only has qualified for such funding but has qualified because we are going backwards rather than forwards. Those Members who argue that public spending, Government intervention and the “Government know best” mentality are the way forward for the Welsh economy should seriously consider the impact of public spending on west Wales and the valleys.
	I shall now take a final intervention from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

Angus MacNeil: What the hon. Gentleman is describing in Wales is a symptom of picking winners; things cannot happen there organically. What is the difference between the EU accession states and Wales? What is the difference between Wales and the Republic Ireland, which used to be behind, but is now well ahead of Wales? The difference is that they have Governments who can make things happen organically within their nations, instead of having to join the “picking winners” line because of policies from another country’s capital that do not fit their needs.

Guto Bebb: Obviously, I do not accept most of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments; certainly, we should be careful about taking lessons from the Irish implosion. Ireland is probably one of the few countries to have a banking crisis even greater than ours. Many of the eastern European accession countries have managed to create vibrant economies by imposing low-tax regimes, and the whole of the UK should look carefully at those countries’ performance.
	In the debate about whether we have a 50p, a 45p or a 40p tax rate, I remind Labour that it found the 40p tax rate completely acceptable for the vast majority of its 13 years in government. What is the purpose of income tax? That is a question that is often forgotten. Its purpose is not to bring down and punish the successful. If we believe in a more equal society, we want more money coming into the Exchequer, because that means we can do more to support the less well-off in society, but we have lost sight of that argument. If we reduce taxes and get more money coming into the Exchequer, that is something that should be welcomed. Time and again, it has been shown that when taxes are reduced, more often than not, the result is more economic activity and a greater success story.

Richard Fuller: Does it not strike at the economic illiteracy of the shadow Front-Bench team that they are far more interested in a headline tax rate than in raising revenue to pay for the public services people want?

Guto Bebb: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I should point out that this debate has been going for more than two and a half hours, and he is only the fourth speaker. If every Member insists on taking this long, there will be a lot of disappointed people in the Chamber. I am sure he has lots to say, but so have other Members, and some consideration on both sides of the Chamber could help in making speeches just a little shorter than over half an hour.

Guto Bebb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I took my cue from the initial speeches, which I think lasted an hour.
	The issue of tax is crucial. I do not want to reduce tax for the sake of it; I want to reduce it because it will stimulate the economy and bring more money into the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said he wanted to reduce corporation tax to stimulate the economy. I do not understand why reducing corporation tax stimulates the economy, but the same does not work for individuals.
	I turn to inequality and the attack in the motion on the Government’s welfare reforms. Those reforms are crucial to the coalition Government’s legacy. In 2010, it was said the coalition came together to deal with the deficit, but just as important, I would argue, was the welfare reform agenda. It might not work, but if it does not, it will be the greatest shame. This brave effort to reform our welfare system is not about penalising people or depriving them of money; its whole purpose is to show faith in people—a faith never shown by the opposition parties.
	The Labour Government had a make-believe target for taking people out of poverty. Poverty was defined as below 60% of the average wage, so if the average wage rose by 10% and the wage of somebody on 60% went up by 10%, they moved from not being in poverty to being in poverty. They were better off, but because the line had moved, they were defined as being in poverty. Even worse, if somebody was on 60% plus £1, they were defined as not being in poverty and therefore a success for the Government. That person did not necessarily feel suddenly out of poverty—they still struggled and found life difficult—but policy makers could forget them because they were above that line. That is why we ended up with 5 million unemployed people during 13 years of the previous Labour Government—5 million people, yes, who had money thrown at them so as not to embarrass Labour in relation to its poverty target, but 5 million people forgotten by Labour and denied the initiative to work because they were being paid to be on welfare. It was deeply shameful that they ignored people in that way, and I am proud to be part of a coalition Government who are at least making an effort to deal with it.
	Between 2005 and 2010, 400,000 people born in the UK moved into unemployment, yet 700,000 jobs were taken by people not born in this country. There was something wrong with a system that said to people in my constituency, “You can be on welfare, while someone from eastern Europe works in the local hotel or the abattoir.” That is shameful, and we need to deal with it, becausethe opportunity to develop must start somewhere.
	I feel passionately about this issue when I talk to the deputy manager of a hotel in my constituency. He came to this country from the Czech Republic, and within 18 months he was a deputy manager. I was very pleased for him, but I thought that the job could have been given to someone from the locality if that person had not been held back by the welfare trap that we had created. Our gradual move towards universal benefit is a brave move, but although it has been supported by Opposition Members in terms of their rhetoric, in terms of their actions they have rejected every effort that we have made to reform a system that is immoral, and is the basic reason for the fact that we have so much inequality in Wales.
	The Labour party in Wales should feel particularly ashamed. The areas in Wales that are really struggling have given their loyalty to the Labour party not for one generation, not for two generations, but for three or four generations, and they have been failed time and again. It is clear from today’s debate that the Government are making really brave decisions to try to ensure that people are not seen merely as numbers so that they can be taken £1 over a moveable poverty line. Our coalition tries to see the value of each and every individual, and the contribution that the individual can make. Nothing will make a bigger impact on inequality than getting people back to work when they are capable of making a huge contribution that is currently being wasted.
	When I see motions of this kind, what I see is the same old rhetoric of the middle-class, left-wing readers of The Guardian who have dominated this country for far too long. What we need are the reforms that are being implemented by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. What we need are the tax reductions that are being implemented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What we need is to show faith in the people of the country, whether that country is Wales, Scotland or the United Kingdom. Government Members see those people’s potential, but I fear that Opposition Members—especially those in the Labour ranks—saw them simply as numbers to be dealt with in the context of their poverty targets while doing nothing to help them, and they should be truly ashamed of that.

Russell Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb).
	Some of the best debates that we experience in the House—on all too few occasions, it must be said—are those that mean a great deal to the people whom we represent, and at the same time manage to secure a degree of consensus. It is therefore a great shame that the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Greens have chosen to go somewhat native today. Rather than providing an opportunity for a straight vote on a commission of inquiry to put pressure on the Government, they have chosen to show their real side by playing gesture politics.
	Just over four weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) led a Back-Bench business debate on the subject of welfare reforms and poverty. Winding up the debate for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made clear that there was a need for a commission of inquiry.

Nia Griffith: Is my hon. Friend aware that 18 Labour Members spoke in that debate, and not a single nationalist did so? I do not blame the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), because he was on paternity leave, but is it not shocking that the nationalists should dare to suggest that Labour is not equally concerned about poverty?

Russell Brown: I have a copy of the report of the debate, so I am well aware of its content and of which Members contributed to it.
	We may find little common ground today, but we can at least agree with the nationalist parties on the need for an inquiry into the impact of the coalition’s cuts on poverty throughout the United Kingdom.
	The motion opens with the words:
	“That this House notes that the United Kingdom is one of the most unequal states in the OECD, ranked 28 out of 34 countries for income inequality and the fourth most unequal country in the developed world according to some analyses”.
	It is those last four words—“according to some analyses”—that present the problem. If we look at the OECD figures, we can see that the most recent ones are out of date. Definitions are provided for these figures, and statistics are also provided, but because different surveys and methodologies have been used, it is a real problem to get fully behind the figures and to determine what they are saying. In other words, statistics can prove one thing to one individual but tell a different story to another.
	The coalition’s austerity measures have undoubtedly resulted in the greatest burden falling on low and middle-income families, while the richest have been given significant tax cuts to ensure that they do not feel the cold draught of the current economic climate. That is why Labour Members have consistently called for action to tackle the cost of living crisis caused by this Government. Such action would include freezing energy prices, taking real action to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, and strengthening the minimum wage now.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) recently said that if Labour forms the next Government,
	“we will restore the 50p top rate of tax”.
	I know that that causes anxiety for Government Members, but we believe that, in tough times like these, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.

Lorely Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House for how many days the 50p rate of tax was in force during the 13 years Labour was in power?

Russell Brown: The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that it was a matter of days, but this also relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy about the impact of taxation on individuals. For most of that time, there was never a need for that higher rate of tax to be imposed. The hon. Lady knows that it was a Budget decision to raise the rate from 40p in the pound to 50p. Yes, that rate applied only for a matter of days, but the Labour Government had not felt the need to increase it at any other time.

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much he expects the 50p tax rate to raise in net gains to the Treasury, and how that squares with the comments from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the policy?

Russell Brown: It will definitely raise more than the 40p rate raises at the moment, but the big challenge for Government Members will be whether there will be a reduction from 45p in the pound to 40p in the next Budget. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that will happen?

Alun Cairns: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question about the comments from the IFS. Does he accept its view that the net gain from Labour’s policy would be negligible?

Russell Brown: The net gain will be significant. It will be some 11% more than is currently being raised.
	It is notable that there is no mention in the motion of creating a fairer tax system. The Scottish National party’s plans for independence include slashing corporation tax, but it has been unable to provide any certainty on whether it would follow Labour in introducing a 50p tax rate. In fact, the SNP Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government has resisted making the party’s tax policy clear in any way.
	We now accept that the driver of inequality has been the rate at which salaries at the top have increased in recent years. Again, however, the motion makes no mention of that. It says nothing about how we are to get to grips with high pay in the UK. The Labour Opposition have accepted the recommendations of the High Pay Commission, and we have outlined three key tests that the Government must meet to show they are serious about executive pay being at such high levels. First, we want firms to publish details on the ratio of employee average salaries to executive pay, and for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to publish a league table showing the highest ratios. Secondly, we want to see an employee representative on the remuneration committee of every company. Finally, we would repeat Labour’s tax on bank bonuses to fund a compulsory jobs guarantee for any young person on unemployment benefits for 12 months or more. These young people are not our future—they are part of today, and they need to be employed today and well into the future. That is real action to bring about fairness in our society, but what we have heard from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru this afternoon often bears closer resemblance to what those on the Government Benches have been saying.
	Yesterday, during a question on economic inequality, Lord Newby stated that
	“according to the latest ONS statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986. The Government are committed to ensuring that all families benefit from the return of growth to the economy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 408.]
	That is not what far too many individuals and households are actually experiencing. Any economic recovery here in the UK is patchwork in its nature. As I have said in the Chamber previously, there are many rural localities where households are in a desperate plight, with below average earnings.

Stephen Crabb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe the statistics and that he does not believe that income inequality is dropping in the UK at the moment?

Russell Brown: I am saying that a rosy picture is being painted. Some will say, “It is happening in London and the south-east”, but the Minister represents a Welsh constituency, which is rural, just as mine is. People in rural constituencies and in some urban constituencies are finding things really difficult indeed. The situation is still pretty tough and they do not recognise this rosy picture that is often painted.
	Also in the other place yesterday, Lord Lawson stated that
	“it is far more important to focus on making the poor richer than on making the rich poorer”.
	I have to agree with that, but the Minister replied:
	“we want to make sure that everybody makes a fair contribution to society and that all those in work get a fair wage for their labour. Obviously, there comes a point when taking too much tax from those right at the top becomes counterproductive.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 408-09.]
	I would have to argue with that; those comments by the Minister tell us an awful lot about what those on the Government Benches are thinking.
	Where we disagree with the text of the motion is on the words
	“successive government of all political hues have presided over an underlying trend of rising income inequality since the early 1980s”.
	There can be no doubt that over the past 30 years or so there have been some particularly difficult and distressing times for many families, but during the early years after the change of government in 1997 rapid improvements were made right across the country. [Interruption.] I am not about to rewrite history; I am about to tell the Chamber what actually happened, because we tend to forget. This relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), because he said that if Labour were to win the next election we would be carrying out the current Government’s spending plans. When Labour came to power in 1997 we held by the tight budgetary constraints, but as a party coming from opposition to government we decided that we would spend the money in a wholly different manner. What did we do with the chance that came our way? We created employment opportunities for young unemployed and long-term unemployed people, the disabled and lone parents through the new deal, and those very chances that were given to so many people brought about a marked change when coupled with the introduction of the national minimum wage and working tax credits. It was not the answer to every woe that people had suffered under the previous Government, but it was a major step forward. For many individuals, especially women, it meant that they no longer had to try to hold down two or three jobs to make ends meet.
	The motion makes reference to inequality between men and women, but fails to recognise the gains made by women under the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010. I am talking about not just the minimum wage and tax credits but extensions to child care, which allowed more women to participate in the labour market, and extensions to maternity leave, which meant that women no longer had to choose between work and family life soon after having a child.
	Let me now mention one or two things that have been raised this afternoon, including the issue of food banks. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 170% increase in the number of people using food banks. Between
	2010 and 2011—some two years ago—61,468 people were using food banks, compared with more than 346,000 now. Those are only the Trussell Trust figures. There are other ad hoc, less regulated, food bank systems.
	The Minister mentioned welfare reform. Let me tell him, in case it has slipped his mind, that the previous Labour Government introduced three welfare reform Bills, and we maintained that those who could work should work and should be given help and support into work.

Pete Wishart: Where does the hon. Gentleman stand on the great “more powers” debate in the Labour party? Is he one of the boycotters, or is he an enthusiast of more powers? Would he give welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that it is under Scottish people’s democratic control, or does he want to keep it with the Westminster Tories?

Russell Brown: I will come to that in just a moment. It is not that I need time to think. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I am a solid believer in devolution.
	We put three welfare reform Bills through the House. They were designed to ensure that those with the greatest need received benefits not just to exist but to live. We were able to recover that money by getting others into work. We were making progress on that when the banking crisis hit and turned the world upside down.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman’s party may have introduced three Bills on welfare reform during its 13 years in government, but the records show that it ducked all the really difficult decisions on welfare reform. It was frit on that and, as a consequence, there are 200,000 people in Wales who have never worked a day in their lives.

Russell Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is an element of him trying to rewrite history. We were making progress. I cannot say what he experienced in his constituency, but there were people in my constituency, some of whom had been out of work for a long time, were disabled, or had been seen as people who would never work, who got into employment, and that was thanks to the excellent work of the Department for Work and Pensions staff. We did make progress; it was just that it was not as much as we would have liked.

Alun Cairns: Can the hon. Gentleman point me to any Labour Government in the past who left office with unemployment lower than it was when they entered office?

Russell Brown: I will be honest with hon. Gentleman and say that I cannot give him that figure. However, I think he is trying to forget that there were almost 3 million people who were unemployed under the previous Conservative Government. We worked massively hard to reduce the levels of unemployment in this country, so much so that, as a Government, we were talking about the potential of full employment in this country, which is a long way away from where we are today.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Russell Brown: Let me just mention one or two other things. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has left the Chamber, but she spoke about paying down
	debt. In case the House has forgotten, when we came to power in 1997, there was 43% debt, and we paid down debt as we progressed over the years to 37%.
	The hon. Member for Aberconwy spoke about taxation. I do not have a problem, as he has, with a 50p income tax rate, but I do have a problem with value added tax. Our colleagues in the SNP need to be absolutely clear and honest with the people of Scotland: if Scotland achieves independence on 18 September and becomes a full EU member state, the people of Scotland will be looking at VAT on food, children’s clothing, and books and newspapers. That is fact.
	The SNP is very good—and I have heard this a couple of times this afternoon—at comparing other small nations with Scotland. It is keen to mention Sweden, and all too often it mentions Norway, but the problem is that they have Conservative Governments. I do not know if that is what it wants in an independent Scotland.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: I would be more than delighted to do so.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that a Conservative Government for Scotland is being a little optimistic.

Russell Brown: I am absolutely delighted that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I have no wish to see that either.
	The one thing that the SNP does not tell the people of Scotland is just how high taxation is in those countries that they are keen to mention and with which they make comparisons. It cannot run away from that.
	On how the devolved Governments have operated in the UK until now and their record on increasing fairness and tackling inequality, the Welsh Labour Government, even in tough times, have worked to protect the most vulnerable in Wales from the Tory Government with Jobs Growth Wales, which will create over 16,000 jobs for young people in Wales, and the £35 million boost to the pupil deprivation grant in the next year. The same cannot be said for the SNP Government in Scotland. A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted that cuts by the UK Government and the Scottish Government in England and Scotland have meant that the most deprived local government areas receive £100 a head less in funding. Professor Arthur Midwinter of Edinburgh university recently concluded that
	“the SNP’s budget strategy adds to the austerity agenda”.
	I made a similar point in an intervention, as £l billion has been removed from anti-poverty programmes since 2008. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that cuts to the most deprived areas in Scotland are greater than those for the least deprived.
	On local government and the underfunding resulting from the council tax freeze in Scotland, this is a debate about fairness and equality, so let me share with the House what we have seen as a result of local government being badly underfunded. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities—those who need social services or who have to pay for services—have seen an increase in the cost of services or, if those services were free, charges have been introduced. That hits the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.

Angus MacNeil: How much does the hon. Gentleman want to raise council tax by and what else is on the agenda for the cuts commission of Johann Lamont?

Russell Brown: That really is a naive question, but it is not unexpected. I am not asking for a council tax increase; I am asking for local government in Scotland to be properly funded. It has to be properly funded. To do otherwise is a false idea, especially when it falls on the shoulders of the poorest.
	If the SNP was serious about tackling inequality in Scotland, it would be using the tools of the Scottish Government, like our colleagues in Wales, to protect people from the worst of the Tories. Instead, it would rather not let Westminster, in the words of its Finance Secretary, off the hook. At no point in the debate have SNP Members explained why they think this is acceptable for the people of Scotland. I would only hope that if there are to be further contributions from their Benches, they will explain away some of the inaccuracies that they think are in my contribution.

Lorely Burt: As a Member of Parliament from Solihull, I would not dream of presuming to talk about the very specialised problems of other parts of the UK, but I hope that I have a word or two to say about fairness and inequality. What was unfair was inheriting a £160 billion deficit from the Labour party. I appreciate that it was not all the fault of Labour. The banking crash all started with a company called Lehman Brothers, which makes one wonder what might have happened if it had been called Lehman Sisters. I can blame Labour for failing to regulate banks properly for 13 years, and then having to bail them out with a £500 billion rescue package. I can also blame Labour for allowing welfare spending to spiral up by 20% when the economy was growing. That has made circumstances difficult for our coalition Government.
	I am proud of what the coalition Government have succeeded in doing. We have cut the deficit by a third, with more coming from the better-off, I hasten to say. Our flagship policy of raising the tax threshold at which people start to pay tax to £10,000 has taken 2.7 million people out of tax altogether, of which 60% will be women.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady says that more tax is coming from the better-off, which is true, but are the better-off not getting a far larger slice of the productivity pie than they have in years and decades past?

Lorely Burt: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the productivity pie, but over the same period of time a millionaire would have paid over £300,000 more in tax under the coalition Government than under the previous Labour Government. In addition, 24 million people have had a tax cut of £700 or more. Those are good things. In addressing unfairness, we seek to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden of the tax. The coalition helped 900,000 people out of poverty altogether between 2010 and 2012, so when Labour Members talk about increasingly harmful circumstances, it should be pointed out that poverty increased under the Labour Government and has decreased under this Liberal Democrat and Conservative Government.
	We have also helped the rich to be relieved of more than their fair share of tax by increasing capital gains tax and closing pension loopholes. No company now will review its tax arrangements without considering the general anti-avoidance rule that we have introduced, which helps focus the mind because it concentrates on the spirit in which tax is paid, as well the fact. Sticking strictly to the law is no longer an excuse for not paying a fair share of tax. Under Labour, capital gains tax was 18%. We have increased that to 28%.
	We fully appreciate that households are under great pressure and we have taken steps to remedy that—for example, by abolishing Labour’s fuel duty escalator, so that when the average motorist fills up their tank, they are paying £7 less to do that. No one denies that it is still expensive, but we are doing what we can to help.
	Liberal Democrats have made a big contribution on fairness. There is now free child care for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for 260,000 two-year-olds. For parents who have children in child care, we have a £1,200 tax break coming down the line. We have frozen council tax and helped local authorities to achieve that. The average family will be paying around £600 less today in council tax than would otherwise have been the case. There are now 494,000 more women in employment and 100,000 more women in self-employment, which is an encouraging step. We will be introducing free schools meals for five, six and seven-year-olds, and as I have already mentioned, 60% of the 2.7 million women on low pay will be taken out of tax altogether.

Mike Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a wonderful aim of the Liberal Democrat party that everyone on the minimum wage should be taken out of tax altogether?

Lorely Burt: Indeed. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), if our aspirations are realised and we can raise the threshold at which people start to pay tax to the minimum wage, we will achieve something very close to what is currently regarded as the living wage. That would be a tremendous help to the lowest-paid in Britain today.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, mentioned women on boards. Although we do not subscribe to a compulsory threshold of 40%, it is encouraging to see that the percentage of women on boards has risen from 12% to 19% since 2010.
	Pensions are an extremely important issue for women because they have been suffering as some of the lowest pension receivers in the United Kingdom. The triple lock is creating a lot of support for women, but it will make a big difference when we reach the citizen’s pension and women receive, as they deserve, the same amount a week as men, at £140 a week or whatever the equivalent will eventually be. There are many other Liberal Democrat policies coming down the line, such as flexible working and shared parental leave.
	In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats will continue to work for greater fairness, not by stripping down the state, like our coalition colleagues, but by creating strong public services. We have stopped some of the more ambitious aspirations of our coalition colleagues, such as the Beecroft report’s proposals on firing at will. We have stopped schools being run for profit and stopped
	inheritance tax breaks for millionaires, and we are continuing to work to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax.
	We want more equality and more fairness, but we also want opportunity for everyone. The work we are doing, particularly in relation to young children, will make a big difference. We want everyone to have opportunity, but we also want to have a safety net. We are yet to persuade our coalition colleagues that our proposed mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million is a brilliant idea, but I think that it will be. I understand from the research that we commissioned—I will now make my only reference to Wales and Scotland—that the millionaires’ tax will apply to no one in Wales, and we identified 17 mansions in Scotland. I think that is very fair, and I am sure that Welsh and Scottish colleagues in the Chamber will applaud that as a very fair tax for the people they represent.

Michael Weir: The Scottish National party’s manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections stated:
	“Scotland can never be considered truly successful until all of its citizens consider themselves to be equally valued members of society. We are determined that Scotland will constantly strive to be a more equal society.”
	We said that because we believe in Scotland.
	Within the UK, Scotland is unfortunately part of an increasingly unequal society, with too many trapped in poverty and prevented from reaching their full potential. As has been said, the UK ranks 28th out of 34 nations on the measure of overall inequality. OECD analysis shows that since 1975 income inequality among working-age people has increased faster in the UK than in any other country in the organisation. Academic analysis also suggests that the UK is the fourth most unequal nation of the world’s richest nations.
	In a rich nation such as Scotland, it is ridiculous that in 2011-12, 710,000 people—14% of our population—lived in relative poverty. That includes 420,000 people of working age, 150,000 children and 140,000 pensioners. Despite periods of time when overall poverty has reduced, in-work poverty has remained high. Two thirds of children who live in poverty in the whole UK have at least one parent in paid work. We believe that it is absolutely unacceptable that in a nation with the wealth and resources of Scotland one in seven of our population live in poverty.
	Since devolution, Scottish Administrations have sought to promote social inclusion and cohesion. Since devolution, child poverty levels in Scotland have fallen substantially, from 28% in 1999-2000 to 15% today, compared with a UK rate of 17%. That is a tremendous achievement by the Scottish Parliament. However, 200,000 more children across the UK will be pushed into relative poverty by 2016 as a result of the 1% cap on increases in benefit payments. That equates to around 15,000 children in Scotland. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that Scotland’s child poverty rate will increase by between 50,000 and 100,000 by 2020 as a result of the UK Government’s tax and benefits policy. That is a terrible indictment of what is happening in our country. That is why we seek independence: to tackle these problems.
	With devolution, the Scottish Parliament has used its limited powers to tackle inequality. Our continuing commitment to a social wage will deliver benefits to everyone in Scotland in tough financial times. We have maintained the council tax freeze, saving the average band D taxpayer about £1,682 by 2016-17. We have kept higher education fee-free and we are keeping student debt levels the lowest in the UK. To me, that is vital. I was the first of my generation to go to university, and I was able to do so only because there were no tuition fees and I got a grant. My daughter has recently gone through university and, even with no tuition fees, it is now a very expensive process. I dread to think about what debt has been piled up on kids who are going through university now and how they are ever going to start in life, buy a house, buy a car or get married. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, there is an increasing trend for children to stay at home much longer and to live in flat-shares well into their 40s, in some cases, because they simply cannot afford the price of property.
	The Scottish Parliament has abolished prescription charges, making the NHS truly free at the point of need, and we are supporting concessionary bus travel for over 1.2 million of our people—over-60s, people with disabilities, and injured veterans. We have provided NHS eye examinations free for all, and we have committed to free personal nursing care, benefiting more than 77,000 older people. Labour attacked many of these things in its cuts commission. The Labour leader said they were just wee things it is not in favour of—unless, of course, it is fighting by-elections, when it tries to take credit for them.

Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman mentioned free prescriptions. Why am I now coming across pensioners in my constituency who are visiting their doctor and instead of being given a prescription for painkillers are told to go to the chemist and buy them over the counter?

Michael Weir: I have never heard of that one; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask the doctors why they are doing that. We have made it clear that free prescriptions are an important policy for pensioners throughout Scotland. Too often, pensioners and those with multiple prescriptions had to choose whether to buy their prescription or eat, and they do not have to make that choice any more. This is a really progressive policy, despite what his leader may say.
	We are investing in skills, training and education for our young people to make sure that they all have an opportunity in life. I recently visited the Angus training group in my constituency, where tremendous work is being done to train youngsters who are leaving school and have got apprenticeships in engineering. While the Chancellor may talk about the march of the makers, we are making sure that that actually happens and there is power behind it. We are protecting the education maintenance allowance for 16 and 19-year-olds while the Westminster Government have scrapped it. These are just a few of the things that we have already done.
	We are committed to ensuring, where we can, that people get paid a decent wage. Since 2011-12, the SNP Government have paid all staff covered by Scottish Government pay policy a living wage, and that includes NHS staff. No compulsory redundancy policy has been
	in place since 2007, helping to protect about 10,000 jobs a year. We are funding the Poverty Alliance to deliver the living wage accreditation scheme to promote the living wage and increase the number of private companies that pay it.
	We have done a lot to deal about inequality in Scotland, but what holds us back so much is the fact that the Scottish Parliament has to depend on and fit within a block grant determined by Westminster that has been steadily cut in the past few years. The Chancellor has said that another £25 billion of cuts is coming round the corner, so we can only imagine what will happen to the Scottish block grant in that event.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of issues such as free personal care. Does he not accept that there are still major problems in Scotland, and if we do not address them but simply say, “We’ve cracked it, we’ve solved it”, we are not helping the people who give and who need care? When care workers have very poor conditions and people are getting 15-minute visits, if that, we have not really solved the problems. Should we not be talking about them instead of being so complacent about somehow having solved them all?

Michael Weir: I cannot believe what I am hearing from the hon. Lady. What I said is that the Scottish Government have taken action on and invested money in those matters. We have not claimed that we have solved every problem under the sun—we cannot possibly do that—but what we have said is that we have done all we can with the powers we have and that with the powers of independence we will be able to do so much more.

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my great concerns about the cuts commission? Labour has said that everything is on the table and has set out a whole list of things, including tuition fees, free bus passes, prescription charges and free personal care. Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am that if Labour gets its hands on the levers of power, those things will be under threat?

Michael Weir: I do indeed have great fears about what will happen to our country if we do not get a yes vote in September, because either this lot will continue in power with the cuts already promised by the Chancellor, or we will have the Labour cuts commission and heaven knows what it might come up with.
	We have a different vision for our country. We will be able to do many things with independence that we cannot do under devolution. The problem of child care, for example, is not just about improving the early education of our children and helping families, important as those things are; it is also an important economic policy. If we can raise female participation in the labour market to the levels achieved in, for example, Sweden, we will not only boost general economic performance, but raise an extra £700 million a year in tax revenue.
	Under devolution, the Scottish Parliament has been able to increase the amount of child care available and it has recently announced a further extension, but with independence we could go beyond that and deliver our ambitious plan for the provision of free universal child
	care for all children aged one to five—a policy that, when fully implemented, would save families up to £4,600 per child per year.
	Why do we need independence to deliver that? Because at the moment, as I have said, Scotland receives a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues resulting from having more women in the workforce unless Westminster decided that we should, so under devolution the costs of providing increased child care would have to be met from within a fixed budget, which would inevitably mean cuts in other services. Those who are making that argument need to tell us where they want to see the cuts. That social and economic transformation can be achieved only when we have access to all of Scotland’s resources, and that is why we need independence delivered to the full.
	We could also take action to ensure that most people are treated fairly and that work is genuinely a route out of poverty. We should not accept this as a given, but the fact is that many women work in low-paid jobs, so what we do with the minimum wage really matters to the living standards of women and their children. With independence, we will able to guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year and not leave it to the whim of the Government of the day.
	It is interesting to note that, if the minimum wage had increased in line with inflation over the past five years, the lowest paid would be £600 a year better off than they are now. That has been the cost to the lowest paid of not being able to take such decisions ourselves and of not being able to make the impact we want on the inequality that stalks our nation.
	With independence, we and not Westminster will be responsible for implementing the Equal Pay Act 1970, closing the scandalous 32% gap that still exists between the pay of men and women. Why is it that 44 years after that Act was passed there is still such a huge gap between their pay?
	Decisions being made down here about the retirement age are also a problem. Just a few years ago, women could expect to retire at 60. By 2020 the retirement age for women will be 66—an increase of six years in just a decade. As things stand, young women entering the work force today will probably have to work until they are about 70. Of course, we all have to accept that people are living longer and that things cannot stand absolutely still—we accepted the first rise in the retirement age—but the rapid increases being imposed by Westminster are not right for Scotland, because we have different demographics. We have serious problems in some of our communities and we are working hard to deal with them. The fact is that life expectancy is often much lower in some of those communities than in the general population. It is, therefore, surely better that decisions about the retirement age are taken in Scotland, where such distinctive circumstances will be properly taken into account.
	I have often spoken in the House on energy, and it will be no surprise that I want to say a few words about it. In its recent campaign, Energy Bill Revolution made the point that fuel poverty has increased across the UK by 13%, but one gain from devolution is that that is not the case in Scotland. Under the latest Scottish house condition survey, which was revealed at the end of last year, the number of those in fuel poverty in Scotland
	has decreased by 3.4% at a time when energy prices are rocketing. That is a tremendous achievement by successive Scottish Administrations, who have made real efforts to tackle fuel poverty. However, there is so much more we could do.

Iain McKenzie: On fuel poverty, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Scottish Government have changed the criteria for boiler replacements for the elderly, which Labour set up? None of them can get boiler replacements.

Michael Weir: The Scottish Government have invested much more in fuel poverty measures: more is now being spent than was spent in the last year in which Labour was in power, and much more is being spent there than is spent down here. As I have said, we have reduced fuel poverty at a time when it is rising in the UK as a whole, but we need to do more. We need to transfer fuel poverty measures from energy bills, which need to be reduced, and put money into a direct programme to increase the fuel efficiency of many houses in Scotland—particularly hard-to-heat houses of solid wall construction—which will help people.

William Bain: Perhaps there is surprising consensus between us on energy bills, because I support an energy price freeze. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and his party do so?

Michael Weir: I am getting a bit tired of hearing that from the Labour party. I have explained our position on the energy price freeze time and again. The freeze will not work. There has already been a massive increase in bills prior to its coming in, and there is likely to be another after it comes in. We had a debate in the Chamber last week about inequalities in the system of billing by energy companies. Those inequalities will be frozen in place by an energy freeze, making things even worse for Scottish consumers. A freeze will also hit the investment needed to ensure that we have jobs for the future and can bring down energy prices through moving to renewables.

Gregg McClymont: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, I have given way enough for the moment.
	The present UK Government have repeatedly said that they took powers in the latest energy legislation to implement the Prime Minister’s promise to put everyone on the lowest tariff. I have pointed out before, and I will do so again, that the measures in the Energy Act 2013 will not have that effect. The relevant sections do not require energy companies to do that, but only to make an offer, which may well be lost in the mass of paper that people receive from them.
	Even if those changes work, they will do nothing to help some of the poorest in our society—those who have to rely on prepayment meters. It may be fine for someone on a direct debit tariff, but those on prepayment meters will be stuck on a higher tariff. Such tariffs are generally higher than those available to someone paying by direct debit, as would happen under Labour’s price freeze. That locks in price inequality. It seems to me that if the Government are truly intent on ensuring that everyone has the lowest possible bill, they need to ensure that that does not apply only within the type of contract people already have, but allows them to move to a cheaper type of contract.
	I have already mentioned the particular problems with prepayment meters. As I have always said, they seem to me to be slightly perverse: it is one of the few examples of consumers ending up paying much more by paying cash in advance. It was interesting to see the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) introduce his ten-minute rule Bill earlier this afternoon. I very much hope that it is successful, but given how many Bills are to be debated on 28 February, I somehow doubt it.
	Citizens Advice Scotland recently issued a report on energy that shows the true difficulties people face. It states that
	“the cases highlighted by bureaux regarding difficulty paying are most commonly with regards to prepayment meters recouping an unaffordable amount for arrears every time the consumer tops up.”
	Citizens Advice Scotland quotes an example that sticks in my mind of a single parent with two children who has to lose £7 towards arrears every time she puts £10 in the meter; the £3 remaining is entirely insufficient to heat her home. That is totally unacceptable and is a clear example of the inequalities facing many of our fellow citizens. In those circumstances, she has no chance of getting out of the cycle of debt—the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made that point—or even keeping her home warm.
	Many of our people are being forced into household debt by the difficulties they find themselves in. The rise of the payday lenders is one of the horrible side effects. We heard last week about the difficulty for those who cannot pay for their energy by direct debit and who have to pay higher prices. It was pointed out that some £2 billion sits with the energy companies, making money for them rather than for consumers—another inequality that afflicts our society.

Gregg McClymont: The hon. Gentleman is being most generous. He is talking about the profits made by energy companies. Is he aware that anyone in Scotland listening to this debate will be surprised that he and his party do not support a price freeze, but instead are in the same position as the energy fat cats?

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is like a broken record. I have explained already, and have done so on numerous occasions, our objections to the energy price freeze. It is easy for Labour to say, “Let’s have an energy price freeze.” It sounds great and I am sure many people love to hear it; unfortunately, it simply will not happen. It will not lead to lower bills, it will freeze in the inequalities already in the system, and it will leave people with higher bills, while his party leader flails about trying to find some flesh to put on the bones of that policy.

Angus MacNeil: When Labour Members talk about an energy price freeze, are they not basically saying to the people, “Do you want your energy bills to go up before we announce the freeze and to go up again afterwards?” It is a total con, and they know that full well. It was done one weekend for a headline in a Sunday newspaper and they are sticking with it now. That is the long and the short of it.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Alun Cairns: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy for Labour Members to call for an energy price freeze when it involves other people’s money or other companies’ money, but it is different when it comes to
	council tax rates? They have the power to freeze council tax rates in Wales, but in the past three years we have seen a 9% increase in council tax. Would they not do better to channel their efforts into an area of policy where they have control and could deliver lower bills?

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I just point out that in Scotland we have frozen council tax for several years. We have also taken action to pay extra money from our already constrained budget to get rid of the effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland. We cannot get rid of the tax itself because that is controlled by the Westminster Government; we can only mitigate the effects.
	Another issue I have talked about in the past is the inequality between rural and urban areas and between different sections of society, particularly in relation to energy and the problems of those who are off the gas grid. Far too often when energy is discussed, we focus on the evils of the big six. It may be good to give them a kicking in passing, but there are also serious problems in the off-grid market. All of us who are off grid will have found that prices have rocketed, much higher than the price of energy from the big six companies and from the grid. Pensioners in particular face serious difficulties in paying their winter bills.
	I have twice introduced Bills in this House and on two occasions, I think, I have tried to amend energy legislation to tackle the problem by suggesting that the winter fuel allowance should be paid earlier. I do not think it would be terribly difficult, but this Government, like the previous Government, seem to have a horror of doing that and making a real difference to the people affected by the problem.

Nia Griffith: I give credit to the hon. Gentleman for the introduction of those Bills, but does he not recognise that it is now the policy of the Labour party to pay the winter fuel payment in the summer so that customers can benefit from cheaper prices? Will he also support Labour’s policy of having a tougher regulator that can look at off-grid issues?

Michael Weir: I am glad that Labour has finally adopted that policy—better late than never. In the last Parliament, I had numerous discussions with Labour Ministers who would not adopt it. I would be interested in what powers a stronger regulator would have. I have often argued that the regulator should have powers over the off-grid sector. When I sat on the Business and Enterprise Committee, before the Department of Energy and Climate Change was formed, we produced a report that asked for that to happen. I have raised that issue repeatedly.
	After an intervention by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) earlier in this debate, I raised the way in which the energy company obligation discriminates against off-grid gas consumers. The ECO is controlled by the big six energy companies and none of them include off-grid gas boilers in their schemes. I wrote to all of them and received various letters back that tried to obscure that fact, but there was no getting around it at the end of the day. I raised the matter at DECC questions last month. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member
	for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) replied that he was meeting the suppliers to tackle the issue. If the Under-Secretary of State for Wales takes nothing else away from this debate, perhaps he could ask DECC Ministers whether any action has been taken. I am sure that it is a huge issue in his constituency, as it is in mine. Such action would not solve these problems completely, but it would help many off-grid customers.
	I will end by saying a little about the Scottish Government’s energy assistance package, which has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce their energy bills. It has been extended for two years, which should help a further 300,000 people. Originally, it was targeted at pensioners, but it has been extended to help other vulnerable people in these difficult times, such as the disabled—including those with severe disabilities—families with young or disabled children, the terminally ill and people who are on carer’s allowance. It is now a much greater scheme than the one that was introduced originally. The number of homes installing loft insulation has more than doubled from 40,000 in 2008-09 to 104,000 in 2011-12. That was praised by the Committee on Climate Change in its report, “Reducing emissions in Scotland”, which was published in March.
	While the UK Government have slashed their schemes, the Scottish Government have continued to invest. We have invested £220 million since 2009, which has resulted in an estimated return in household income of more than £1 billion. A further £250 million will be invested over a three-year period to tackle fuel poverty. That is a great record. As I said earlier, the number of people in fuel poverty is falling in Scotland, unlike in the rest of the UK. Those are significant improvements, but we still have much to do.
	We could achieve further improvements much more easily if we had the full powers afforded by independence. We would really get to grips with inequality if we did not have the dead hand of Westminster holding us back. It is interesting that the Labour party is quite happy to let the Tories stay in power, rather than have Scotland tackle its own problems.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am glad, as an Englishman, finally to be allowed to enter into this debate, because the motion refers to the United Kingdom. It is a great honour to speak in this debate, because the nationalists appear to have a very clever plot, whereby they send their best and brightest people down to Westminster to make us realise how much we would miss them if they went independent. Since entering this House in 2010, I have become more and more pro-Union, simply because of the fantastic speeches we hear from nationalist Members.
	Today was a model of its kind. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) gave an absolutely brilliant speech that started with the ancient history of Wales and had the House gripped by his every word. I was sorry that I could not hear the whole speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), as I had to go to European Committee A for a moment, but I was relieved that he was not too brief because there was so much to be said, and he was almost still speaking by the time the Committee ended.
	The motion itself, however, though presented with panache and oratory, is fundamentally misplaced. It goes completely the wrong way about tackling issues of inequality because it argues fundamentally that we should all be impoverished. It is an argument that says that inequality is the important issue, not how prosperous people ought to be. It mentions the
	“underlying trend of rising income inequality”
	but the problem is that the point at which income inequality has been reduced has coincided with the recession. Yes, it is easy to reduce income inequality if we ruin the economy. If we make everybody poorer, we can all be poor—and perhaps happy—together. Actually, I think the British people will not be happy if they get poorer; they will be happier if they get richer. It is of no pleasure to me that during the recession, the income of the top decile of income receivers in the United Kingdom fell by 9%, and that of the bottom decile by 2.4%. Although it could be argued that the better off are making a bigger contribution than the worse off, I do not want to see anybody’s income decline. I want everybody’s income to increase, and that requires the economic policies that this Government have followed.

Angus MacNeil: As our state is getting wealthier and productivity is growing, does the hon. Gentleman agree that all should share in that, and that the rent seekers at the top end should not abuse their positions as CEOs or hedge fund managers and see their wealth grow by 60% to 80%, while over a decade the equivalent bottom 90% will see their wealth grow by only 17%?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is when he fails to recognise what those very wealthy people do. By and large, hedge fund managers and corporate tycoons spend their money, and if they do not spend it they save it.

Angus MacNeil: They spend it on wine!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If they spent it on wine, that would help the French, rather more perhaps than the English, but that is slightly beside the point. They might spend it on whisky, which will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If they spend money, they create employment and economic activity, and if they save it and put it in a bank, they provide the deposits against which banks can lend. One of the great problems of the banking crisis was that the loan-to-deposit ratio went way above 100%—I think the Royal Bank of Scotland got up to 135%. It is not practical for banks to lend when they are not taking in deposits, because they then become dependent on overnight money, which can be withdrawn much more easily, and has a tendency to be withdrawn more quickly than long-term stable deposits. When the income of the wealthy is saved, it is an economic good.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that before the crash the wealthy were not saving enough of their money and were perhaps squandering it in various ways, and that one of the main reasons for the crash was that the banks did not have enough deposits from the wealthy? Surely if it had been in everybody’s hands, it would have been in the banks.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman has taken one bit of what I have said and applied it incorrectly. It is uncharacteristic of him not to listen more carefully, and I will come on to the issue of spending cuts.

William Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course I will give way to a Member who represents a seat with “North East” in its title.

William Bain: What would be the hon. Gentleman’s answer to those well-known leftists in the International Monetary Fund who have published detailed research indicating that when the gap between rich and poor gets too large in an economy, it diminishes growth and therefore living standards for everyone?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The IMF is not full of well-known leftists, but it does seem to be run, by and large, by the French, who have a very different understanding of economics, an absolutely rotten economy, and are the last people from whom I would take lessons. We will not in this Chamber go into the behaviour of the previous managing director—it would shock the viewers of the Parliament channel if they were to consider how Monsieur Strauss-Kahn had behaved. Anyway, I will not be told what to do by people who cannot behave.
	I want to come back to the economic benefits of the spending and saving of the wealthy. That is what provides the employment and investment that leads to economic growth, and leads to the rising of living standards for the poorest in society. That is not done by the state. The state can indeed pass money around—it can reallocate money from pot A to pot B—but that does not increase the fundamental size of the pot. It merely reallocates what is already there, whereas the expenditure, saving and investment of individuals in the private sector grows the total amount that is available and therefore leads to cascading wealth.
	This is where I must come on to the specific point in the motion calling on the Government
	“to halt its further spending and welfare cuts”.
	The spending cuts have been essential. The Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been a model to other countries in how they have behaved. In a cross-partisan moment, I thank the Liberal Democrats for the role they have played. It must have been particularly difficult for them to take these tough decisions, having not been in government for so many generations and facing up to more serious responsibilities than parties in opposition sometimes have to deal with. I think they deserve a huge amount of credit for the support they have given to the Conservatives. Lots of economists, some of them quoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, were saying that it was the wrong thing to do. Even the IMF had to eat its words a year after saying that austerity was not the right thing to do. The IMF was wrong and the Government were right. Why was that?
	First, when the Government came into office there was a risk that there would be a funding crisis. There was a risk that the Government would simply not be able to raise the money in the gilt market that they needed to pay for the services that the British people wished to receive. That was the first problem. The second problem was that Government expenditure and very high debt crowd out private sector activity. If the Government had not reduced spending, businesses would not have been able to have access to the capital they needed to begin the recovery. The third problem was that by taking money out of the economy, there was a
	general depression of economic activity as individuals and their families had less to spend throughout the economic spectrum. It was being taken out of productive capacity and used unproductively merely on a money merry-go-round of the state.
	This is, again, where I like the fact that the coalition has raised the basic threshold of income tax. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) that this should be increased. It is absolutely barmy to tax people on low incomes and then give them their own money back in benefits. Not only do we want to get it to £10,000, we want to get it to the point where people on the minimum wage are neither paying national insurance nor income tax.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is mainly making points about redistribution and I disagree with him on that. In one of the longest parts of my speech, I made a point on the living wage and the number of people who are now working poor. He mentioned the billionaires and rich people that we have in apparent abundance around the place. Should we not be seeing people at least earning a wage that means that they do not need to benefit from state welfare to top up the lack in their wages?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The wages that people are paid in this country are set on an economically competitive basis, not just against what goes on in this country but on what goes on in the rest of the world. As a nation, we need to produce goods and services that people will buy. Then, when we have profitability and successful businesses that grow, there will be money to pay people more. We want more billionaires, because billionaires spend money. Who do we think are buying all these Rolls-Royces, Bentleys and Jaguars? In Portugal, the people buying them might be quite poor, because it has a special scheme where one can win a car if one buys a cup of coffee and makes the person selling the cup of coffee promise to pay tax, but outside Portugal—in China, India, America and the United Kingdom itself—the people who buy these luxury goods are those who are well off. We need those people to provide the good jobs.
	I want to move on to the dead hand of welfare, as it appears that the feeling expressed by those on the Opposition Benches—particularly by the nationalists, although Labour is not a million miles away—is that if a Government take money and dish it out that helps people. I fundamentally disagree. I do not think that it is fair that people who do not work should be better off than people who do. Indeed, I think that is wrong. I do not think that it is fair that people should be trapped in poverty by decisions that the state makes.
	One of the noblest things that this Government are doing is the reform of the welfare state. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) that if people are lifted out of state dependency, they can take charge of their lives and become prosperous. They can then contribute to the overall economy. If benefits are set too high and the percentage of its withdrawal is so high that there is no incentive to work, people are trapped.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of yesterday’s report on working poverty by the Archbishop of York. It showed that most of the people in receipt of
	benefits are working and the efforts people are making to earn a decent wage are not having an effect because they are not being paid properly. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman again: does he support efforts to ensure that people are paid properly so that companies are not subsidised by the state? In the United States of America, one of the biggest recipients of welfare is Walmart and we have different examples in this country.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Once again, I am sorry to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that specific point. It is much preferable that the state should pay benefits to people who are working and being paid the economic rate for their job.

Nia Griffith: Will the hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the specific issue of universal credit and its acting as a disincentive, particularly for the second earner in a family?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The basic principle of universal credit, which is that everybody should be better off in employment than not in employment, is fundamentally right and reducing the withdrawal rates is possibly the most exciting thing that the Government are doing. If we go back to 1979—I promise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this will not be a history lesson—and look at the reductions in the tax rates from 98% to 80% and then to 60%, we see that on every occasion the incentive to work increased and revenue to the Government increased too. Some of the percentages for the withdrawal rates for benefits are in the 90s. If people would not work harder when taxed at 98%, surely they will not work harder when benefits are withdrawn at 90%-plus. The model follows that if the withdrawal rates are reduced, motivation to work will miraculously be improved and increased.
	That benefits the whole of society and brings me to the fundamental flaw in the motion, which is that it takes the view that there is a bottomless pit of money to be spent and that we can go on spending like there is no tomorrow, ignoring the financial markets.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend find it as surprising as I do that people on the left of the political spectrum seem to want to borrow more money and therefore make us even more dependent on the banks that they pretend to dislike? Why not put up a sign saying “Borrow more money and make us more dependent on the banks” instead of calling for more state spending, as they mean the same thing?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There must be fears that if the Bank of England goes on printing money, the printing presses will eventually wear out in an inflationary burst.
	There is hope from the Opposition Benches. We heard that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar supported the reduction in corporation tax in Scotland because he thought that it would produce more revenue, more business and more prosperity for Scotland. That is the vision of fairness and of reducing inequality that we should have. It is a vision in which people succeed through their own efforts rather than being trapped by
	the state; in which people prosper through their own efforts, rather than being held down by the state; and in which people contribute through their own efforts to the growth of the rest of society and the economy, rather than being prevented from doing so by the state and being left unproductive .

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman talks about the state as a malign influence, but does he accept that markets have their flaws and do not work properly? Influences and biases in the markets can conspire so that the CEO gets far more, in ratio with the pay at the bottom end, than at one time he used to whereas the people at the bottom end cannot even make a living wage. There are huge iniquities in the private sector and it is not all “State bad”. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the state can be good as well and there can be big problems in the private sector.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman and I are co-religionists, and if we are not careful we will start talking about original sin and the imperfectability of mankind. It is true, of course, that there is no perfect man-made system, and that would be an interesting debate for another day, but by and large the markets work better than state direction, which essentially re-circulates money that is created in the private sector. We need a flourishing private sector if we are to help people to improve their standard of living, their lives and their livelihoods, and if we are to take them out of this awful poverty trap. There is great nobility in what the Government are doing. They do not want unfairness; they want fairness for those people and families doing their bit for society, working hard and getting on, and they want to take away the clamping down, the closing down, the almost bankrupting of the country that was being done before.
	For those reasons, I oppose the motion. It is fundamentally wrong-headed in all it seeks to do, and I hope the Government stick to their guns and carry on with economic and welfare policies that enable people to become better off through their own efforts.

Debbie Abrahams: I was not sure whether the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) agreed or disagreed that inequalities are bad. I certainly believe—and I can present evidence—that inequalities between rich and poor are bad not just for the people who experience them, but for society as a whole. A large swathe of international academic evidence shows—most poignantly in “The Spirit Level”, published a few years ago—that the gap between rich and poor is bad for everyone in society. Inequalities affect life expectancy, mental health, social mobility, educational attainment and the extent of crime. So I start from the premise that inequalities are bad.
	In my previous life in public health, I worked on socio-economic inequalities and their impact on health inequalities, which is what I want to discuss today. Again, I was not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said, but he talked about the separate position of the state and the responsibility of individuals within society. I believe—again, I think there is evidence to support this—that the Government set the tone for the culture of a society, in both their explicit and implicit policies, and how we divvy up spending reflects those policies.
	As I said, considerable evidence shows that the systematic, socially produced differential distribution of resources and power—I mean income, wealth, knowledge, status and connections—is the key determinant of health inequalities. Mortality and morbidity increase as people’s social position declines. My constituency contains an affluent part, in Saddleworth, although there are pockets of deprivation, as in every community, and a poorer part, in Oldham East, and that differential is reflected in a 10-year difference in life expectancy, which is a situation that can be replicated across the country.
	That social pattern of disease is universal. It is produced by social processes influenced by Government policies, both written and unwritten, rather than by biological differences. There is no law of nature that decrees that children born to poor families will die at twice the rate of children born to rich families. We should, however, take some comfort from the fact that those inequalities are socially produced and, as such, neither fixed nor inevitable. That means that we have some hope of doing something about them.
	I am very concerned about the direction of Government policy, which, although largely driven by the Tory party, is to a large extent supported by the Liberal Democrats. The Health and Social Care Act 2012, for instance, completed its passage because it was propped up by them. One of the key objectives of the original policy was to reduce health inequalities, but there is absolutely no evidence that this privatisation Act will do anything of the kind. The Government have tried to suggest that increasing competition in the NHS will improve quality and reduce the number of inequalities, but I recently organised an inquiry in my capacity as chair of the parliamentary Labour party’s health committee, and eminent academics were saying exactly the opposite. One was
	“shocked to see the move to wholesale competition and Any Qualified Provider as a primary driver in NHS reforms on the basis of”
	very few observational studies conducted by the London School of Economics and others. Another said that
	“clearly different drivers are motivating the private healthcare sector”.
	In the US, there is both under and overtreatment, and huge disparities in health care. We know that the Government are already putting out to tender seven out of 10 contracts.
	Before the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act, directors of public health and public health academics wrote that it would exacerbate inequality rather than reduce it, but the Government pressed on, and they continue to press on. The implications of the EU-US trade negotiations are of particular concern, because the Government have still not committed themselves to exempting the NHS from the free trade agreement. We will challenge them vigorously on that.
	The recent debacle over NHS resources allocations is another example of the Government’s total lack of commitment to reducing health inequality. We saw the writing on the wall back in 2012, when the former Secretary of State for Health—the present Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley)—reduced the health inequalities weighting from 15% to 10%, which would have a direct impact on areas where health was particularly poor. Following last year’s consultation about how NHS resources should be
	allocated, the Government were prompted to withdraw their previous policy and include an element that took account of deprivation in order to avoid another furore, but there are still major problems in connection with the allocation. A recent analysis undertaken by academics shows that the Labour Government’s health inequalities weighting saved lives: three lives per 100,000 in the population. I am extremely concerned about the new formula, and about its failure to take inequalities into account.
	However, health policy is not the only problem. Other Members have already mentioned the Government’s economic policies. Although the personal allowance has been increased, the cut in tax credits means that 40% of the worst-off members of the population will be about £1,500 worse off. Those policies are doing nothing to reduce the economic inequalities that ultimately lead to health inequalities.
	The Government are reducing access to education by trebling tuition fees and by scrapping education maintenance allowance, which was a key funding mechanism to enable young people from deprived areas to buy books and travel to college. They have now been denied that.

Nia Griffith: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on protecting education maintenance allowance for the poorest families, for the reasons that she has outlined?

Debbie Abrahams: I will indeed. I also want to pay tribute to Oldham college, which has introduced its own system to ensure that people from the poorest backgrounds can still attend college without being financially penalised.
	The Government are restricting access to justice through their legal aid changes. Inequalities are also being created through job insecurity resulting from zero-hours contracts. The swathe of policies that the Government have introduced have done nothing to reduce inequalities. On the Government’s so-called welfare reforms, I absolutely detest the divide and rule narrative that has been deliberately introduced in an attempt to vilify people receiving social security as the new undeserving poor. The pejorative language of “shirkers” and “scroungers” has been really disingenuous, and the Government are distorting statistics to try to prop up their welfare reforms. That is absolutely shameful.
	Collectively, the impact of public spending cuts is significantly greater in deprived areas. Academic studies also show the relationship between public spending and, for example, life expectancy at birth. The immediate impact of these socio-economic inequalities on health inequalities is already showing. Following the 2008 recession, there was an increase in male suicides, with an additional 437 suicides registered in the UK in 2011, roughly mirroring the increase in unemployment. It will take time for health conditions such as cancer and heart disease to develop. There is always a time lag between such conditions and their immediate precursors. We also know that the protective, positive factors that can mitigate these negatives are being eroded.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady is making a clear, thoughtful speech. She has touched on regulation, and on positive factors. Does she agree that one of the malign aspects of
	state regulation is the excessive regulation of trade unions, especially when the OECD has shown that strong trade unions can help to reduce inequalities? Does she also agree that this is one area in which the UK has definitely gone too far?

Debbie Abrahams: I am a trade unionist and I fully support trade unions.
	On the current policy trajectory, the social pattern of health inequalities will continue. For example, the gap in life expectancy is set to increase, rather than decrease. In England, there is now a nine-year difference for men and a seven year difference for women. The Government’s indifference to inequality reflects their belief in the dated theory that reducing inequality reduces incentives and slows growth. That theory has had a number of iterations, but the converse has been shown to be the case. For example, Stiglitz produced evidence last year to show that inequality caused financial instability, undermined productivity and retarded growth.
	The previous Labour Government did not get everything right, but I am proud that we achieved our targets on health inequalities. Our key successes were in achieving our objectives, first, to reduce health inequalities by 10% as measured by life expectancy at birth for men in spearhead areas, and, secondly, to narrow the gap in infant mortality by at least 10% between routine and manual socio-economic groups and the England average. That was quite a feat, and it has not been acknowledged by this Government. I am sure that the Minister will take an opportunity to mention it in his closing remarks. We did not get it right, but we are definitely moving in the right direction with the policy initiatives we have announced: strengthening the minimum wage; increasing support on child care; freezing energy bills; repealing the bedroom tax; providing support on business rates; and improving the quality of jobs.

Mark Durkan: Reflecting on not just the previous Administration, but the previous Parliament, does the hon. Lady agree that one of their collective achievements was the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was supported by all parties? The Welfare Reform Act 2012 was used to gut the key component of that Act by removing the key element of targets and annual reports. That was not done properly, by its inclusion in the original Bill, but by a Government-sponsored amendment in the Lords, which came back here and was not even voted on.

Debbie Abrahams: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the increase in child poverty. The Labour Government made some strides in reducing that. As he will know, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that child poverty will increase by 1.1 million by 2020 because of this Government’s policies.
	Let me finish on a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), a former Health Secretary:
	“Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you'll die sooner because you’re badly off”.
	I hope that focuses all our minds.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) brings to this House a wealth of experience and
	understanding from her previous work in the area of health, and I hope that the House listened carefully, as I did, to her comments about the interaction between differences in health and the perpetuation of inequality in our country. However, I did disagree with some points in her critique, which I shall discuss later; most importantly, there was an absence of a full understanding of the context in which this Government are taking actions to address fairness and inequality.
	I, like many people, get somewhat concerned and uneasy when I hear politicians bandying around words such as “fairness”, “equality” or “inequality”. History has taught people that when politicians profess themselves in favour of fairness, they too often end up enriching themselves and those politicians who would rally people to the banner of equality too often end up repressing those same people once power has been given to them. So it was with some trepidation that I came to this debate, but the prospect of being able to listen to perspectives on those issues from Members of this Parliament from different parts of the UK attracted me, and I have not been disappointed, either by the opening speech or by those of other hon. Members.
	Judgments about what is fair or not fair, or about the balance between equality and inequality, are best left to individuals and families. People are perfectly capable of making those decisions based on what they have learned from their parents and grandparents, on what they have been taught in school or, perhaps, on the lessons they have learned in their church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Politicians fall rather low down the list of people who can be persuasive on those topics. Nevertheless, we shall battle forth.

Angus MacNeil: I do not disagree in any way, shape or form that people can make assessments about what is iniquitous or unfair, but the hon. Gentleman needs to go further down the road, because when people see inequity and unfairness they do not have the power to do anything about it. That is when this place and national Parliaments around the world have to regulate, reform things and so on to make sure we have the situation we had after world war two: a better settlement for the greatest breadth of citizenry.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Let us assess the ability of Government today to fulfil that positive role. One of the most important aspects of fairness is the future that we bequeath to our children and grandchildren. It is a natural aspect of human behaviour to want to give the best start in life to our children and grandchildren. One of the worst aspects of the context in which we are operating today, as a Government and as a Parliament, is that under the previous Government, we built up the most significant amount of debt to pass on to our children and grandchildren. One of the most important aspects of what the Opposition call the cost of living crisis—my constituents think of it as trying to meet the family budget—is the debt that was left by the previous Government for this Government to deal with.
	The Opposition like to talk about the level of Government debt at that time, but a Chancellor of the Exchequer is custodian not just of part of the economy but of the entire economy, and, before he makes a decision, he has to look at the strength of the economy.
	It is an incontrovertible fact that the level of indebtedness of this country in 1995—Government debt, household debt and corporate debt—was about two times the size of the economy, and when the Labour party left office, it was five times the size of the economy. We do not need to have a credit card to know that we have to pay off all that debt, and not just part of it.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the decisions that were made in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which had nothing to do with the debt? We recognise the economic context, although we could quibble about the causes and whether we reduced the level of debt. I believe that we reduced it while we were in power. None the less, the specific policies of the Act had nothing to do with that debt. They were choices that the Government would have driven through regardless of the economic context.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady is repeating the point that she made in her speech. I am sure that the Minister will want to address it now or later. Earlier on, she missed this major contextual factor, which is somehow the Government must be able to manage the economy while dealing with a substantial overhang of debt, and individual families are doing that as well. That is a root and crucial part of how we can achieve a more equal society. We cannot achieve an equal society if we permit Government to pass on massive debts to the future generations without any liability themselves.

David Davies: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he find it as extraordinary as I do that that debt was being racked up from 2001 onwards at an average rate of about £30 billion a year, long before the financial crisis struck?

Richard Fuller: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is drawing our attention to the Government part of the debt, but I have to tell him that the stewardship of the economy by the Government was worse even before then. We, as people who can vote in Governments and as citizens, have to take that responsibility ourselves, too. We are responsible for what this generation does, whether it is our Government, our corporations or any other aspect of society, but we pass on those consequences to our children and grandchildren and they will inherit either a more equal and more prosperous society or a less equal and less prosperous society because of the decisions that we make as individuals and the way in which we hold our Government to account.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Richard Fuller: With respect, others wish to speak, so I will move on now to specific parts of the motion.
	Let me address the issue of austerity measures and why they are in place. First, there is the fact that we have accumulated too much debt. Another issue is the ripple effects of that debt crisis. As the Government deal with the overriding debt, individual families, especially those in vulnerable circumstances, are pushed to the edge and need to go to payday lenders and other high interest rate lenders to deal with the consequences of that macro-financial situation. The individual circumstances of individual households have to be taken into account.
	The other issue—again, it is the legacy of what occurred in preceding years—is the way in which house prices have become detached from incomes. Shelter is running a campaign on the issue, and although it is an interesting point to raise, I think that it is about 10 years too late. In the Living Wage Commission report, to which many hon. Members have referred, there is an interesting chart—figure 1.21—which looks at the ratio of house prices to earnings for the years 1952, 1975, 1997 and 2012. For the entire period from 1952 to 1997, the ratio of house prices to income fell. In 1952, it was five times the average income, but by 1997, it was 4.1 times. In the period from 1997 to 2012, it rose from 4.1 times to 6.7 times; 100% of that increase took place in the period to 2007. If we look at the cost of living and the cost of housing—part of enabling people to own their own home, get on the property ladder and pay their rent—we see that the issue of inequality will take time to resolve, because it took us a long time to get into that mess in the first place.
	The motion refers to women and relative pay. I want to draw to the attention of the House, not by way of answer but by way of contribution to the argument, the House of Commons economic indicators report for February 2014. It looks at the gender pay gap and it makes the broad point that the overall pay gap between men and women has decreased steadily from 1997, but in considering whether the gap will be perpetuated in the future, it examines the gender pay gap by age range. For women and men between 18 and 39, the pay gap oscillates between 1.4% and 0.3%. For women over 40, it oscillates between 12% and 18%, which raises a question for policy makers such as the Minister: is that issue to do with career breaks and will it persist over time, or is it the result of a fairly good news story, with younger women and younger men on average having access to the same sort of jobs and pay, so that in about 20 years’ time the differential will go down? I do not put that forward as an answer, because I do not know the answer, but as a contribution to the debate and to broaden understanding.
	There have been a number of contributions about the working poor, poverty and the living wage. We have discussed raising wages from the minimum wage level to living wage levels, but too frequently that would result in a small pay increase for the individuals concerned. It is a transaction between the employer and the Government in terms of the interaction of benefits and compensation. To contradict my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who discussed the free market in wages—it is a small difference—I would argue that if in the low-pay sector Government are topping up wages to the tune of £10,000 on a £13,000 wage, which is the case for a married person with two children earning the minimum wage, the free market is far from working. There could be a strong argument, not only from the point of view of public finances but in order to have a freer market, for urging the Government to increase the pressure on companies by removing that subsidy, which is supporting labour. However, I should be interested to hear more from my hon. Friend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is my hon. Friend aware that someone working 40 hours a week in receipt of the minimum wage would pay over £2,200 a year in tax, which must be part of the problem? I include in that employers’ national insurance.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have sought to reverse the level of tax that people on low incomes pay, unlike the previous Government. In addition, with the employment allowance, the Government have a tool to encourage employers to increase pay for people on low incomes, and I hope that the Chancellor will do something about that.
	We talk a lot about improving skills, which is important, but that does not work for everyone. Not everyone will want to take on additional skills. One aspect of pay that during my career in business changed dramatically was the recognition of tenure. It used to be the case that by doing the same job for two, three, five or 10 years, not improving one’s skills but just getting better at what one did, an increase in pay could be anticipated. We have lost sight of that too much over the last 10 or 15 years. We have said it is just one rate for the job, with no regard to tenure. I ask the Government to look at tenure as part of a more widespread response to the persistence of low pay in this country.
	In addition to the promotion of a living wage by councils, there is an important point about the commissioning that councils do. There have been reports in the media recently about the commissioning of various types of service by local authorities that impact on the pay that can be earned by individuals, which is also an important point for the Government to consider.
	I will not get into the debate about the rise of food banks under the last Government compared with now. Food banks provide a good service and I encourage people to support them as much as possible. I went to the food bank in Bedford and I pay tribute to the All Nations Church, to the Salvation Army and to the other Churches that run the food bank.

Gordon Banks: May I entice the hon. Gentleman to go into the matter of food banks a little? Has he seen the latest newsletter from the Trussell Trust, which somewhat contradicts the Minister’s position earlier? It says that 42% of all food bank users cite benefit-related problems as the reason why they use food banks.

Richard Fuller: I have not seen that report, but I have seen the data on those using the food bank in Bedford. For a large proportion of people the causes are related to benefit changes. I do not have the statistics, but within that group some people have been sanctioned for not complying with the benefit rules. Would the hon. Gentleman support policies that sanction people for not conforming with the benefit rules, or does he believe that they should not be sanctioned?

Sheila Gilmore: My constituents are not being sanctioned for not looking for a job, but for one-off incidents. One constituent rearranged an interview with the Work programme provider because of difficulties with her child’s school start times and was told that that was okay, but she was subsequently sanctioned. People are being sanctioned for minor infringements, almost on a whim.

Richard Fuller: I do not want the hon. Lady to conflate two things. If the 42% figure reflects the situation in Bedford, it is to do with the broader issues of benefits, which includes sanctions, changes to benefits and the specific examples that the hon. Lady mentioned, where the reason is fairly spurious or there is just a plain error.
	I do not believe such cases make up the 42% proportion, but they are part of it. But I am a Tory, so I understand that large bureaucracies forget the individual and people are caught by that. In my constituency—as I am sure the hon. Lady is in her constituency—I am creating a form with the local food bank provider so that when circumstances such as she describes occur, my office can be informed straight away. It is important that we as Members of Parliament use our power, when such spurious changes to benefits are made, to shorten the time that they take to resolve. For some of my constituents that can take six, seven, eight weeks or more, which is not correct if a sanction has been inappropriately applied.

Gordon Banks: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said. I commend the hon. Gentleman on his work in moving things on for his constituents in respect of food banks. I do the same, as I am sure do many other right hon. and hon. Members, but I have had constituents who have been sanctioned because they have been ill and then, because they are sanctioned, they have no money to go to appointments, and are sanctioned again. That system is totally out of control.

Richard Fuller: I will not dwell on the matter. I have asked the hon. Gentleman whether he supports the process of sanctions. I would be interested to hear him explain in his speech what type of sanctions he supports and how he would implement them, if he had to take that responsibility.
	The final part of the motion asks the Government to halt their spending cuts. If they halt that process, they have to look at increasing taxation. I am sure many hon. Members know that the ways in which we raise tax are moving more and more towards fewer people paying a larger proportion of tax, with 1% of the population paying 30% of income tax and 29,000 people paying 14% of income tax. On the one hand, this may be seen as an aspect of inequality. On the other, it may be seen as a fairly dangerous way in which a Government can raise money, in which case the shadow Chancellor’s proposal to increase tax rates again is probably inappropriate.
	In some of the contributions from even those on the Government Benches, we convey the impression that the Labour Government were benign on tax. I draw the attention of the House and the Minister to what was going on between 2000 and 2010. It is in a House of Commons Library note called “Income tax: the additional 50p rate”, which looks at the top rate of tax, including social security contributions, between 2000 and 2010. It shows that in France that rate went down 10.6 percentage points, in Germany it went down by 5.8 percentage points, but in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2010 that rate went up by 11 percentage points. So it is not fair to use the word that has been common in this debate or to maintain the perspective that somehow, under the Labour Government, the rich were getting off with low tax rates. The Labour Government were taxing people at a high rate. They started the process of a higher proportion of taxes being raised from fewer people, which results in a very difficult situation for people overall.
	We have had an interesting debate and I look forward to hearing more contributions from hon. Members on fairness and equality. I have not yet been persuaded that politicians are best placed to determine that. I believe that individuals make their own judgments. I hope that
	by using some of the information that I have presented today, other contributions may be better placed to consider the issue.

Nia Griffith: Fairness and equality are fundamental to Labour’s vision for society. Our roots are in the philosophy and movements that worked for a fairer society, such as the democratically controlled non-conformist chapels, friendly societies and trade unions. We believe in a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. We want to see a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. However, it is not just the less well off who benefit from a more equal society. As has been well documented, more equal societies deliver better outcomes not only for the less well off, but across the whole community —not only are the least well off less disadvantaged, but people feel more secure, safer and less threatened, and society is more cohesive.
	Tackling inequality is about challenging those structures that perpetuate inequality and about creating the necessary structures to challenge and mitigate that inequality. It is about challenging and ending exploitation in its many guises. It is about responsible trade unions negotiating with managers to ensure a fair share of rewards for working people and, as we saw in 2008, safeguarding jobs and retaining skilled workers, even if that meant their accepting temporary reductions in pay or hours. Tackling inequality is about siding with ordinary people against the powerful, against whom they feel they have no redress. It is about empowering them and giving them the means to achieve that redress. It is about setting priorities to try to redress inequalities and developing the tools and structures to continue to tackle inequality.
	Things do not stand still. We need to continue to tackle inequality. For example, we have said that we will impose a freeze on energy prices, but that is not enough. It is the immediate first step. We will then break up the energy market to make it work better for the consumer. In other words, we need an ongoing solution. We will also introduce a tougher regulator to ensure that the market works for people. It will have the power to tackle the off-grid issues that many hon. Members have mentioned today. With this Government there is absolutely no redress for the ordinary person. They are not standing up to the energy companies, which are making massive profits, but instead are just moving the green taxes on to general taxation.
	The Government have imposed massive cuts to legal aid and introduced disproportionate charges for employment tribunals. Someone who is wrongly dismissed from a low-paid job will have to pay £500 up front to go to an employment tribunal, but because they were on low pay they might not have any savings. The Government are trying to tear up employment legislation and make people feel even more insecure than they do now.
	The Government are using the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 to attack trade unions that are standing up for workers’ rights. Despicably, they have been using the same Act to attack charities standing up for, and highlighting the needs of, vulnerable people. They are charging people an up-front fee to go to the Child Support Agency to get an estranged parent to pay their fair share of child maintenance.
	Everywhere we look, the Government are making it harder for ordinary people to get what they are entitled to: harder to get a fair wage for a fair day’s work; harder to get energy supplies at a fair price; harder to make ends meet if they fall sick, lose their job or cannot find more hours to work; and harder to stay in their house, which might have been specially adapted, if they are hit by the bedroom tax—a cruel and ill-thought-out tax that Labour would reverse.
	We all understand that the banking crisis has led to severe financial restraint, but there are still different options and priorities that Governments can adopt. They can choose to give tax cuts to millionaires, as this Government have done, or they could ask the better-off to bear a greater share of the burden. Under this Government, however, we have seen the very poor get even poorer.
	Successive Governments have uprated benefits in line with inflation, mostly using the retail prices index until 2011. Since then we have seen the breaking of the link between inflation and the rates at which benefits rise. Do not forget that 68% of those affected by the Government’s benefits changes are in work. Universal credit will be subject to annual review, but not to mandatory uprating. There is a huge danger that it will fall behind inflation.
	However, well before we get to universal credit, with its myriad problems, which are not helped by the sheer incompetence with which it is being introduced, the Government should look at the impact of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013. Most working-age benefits have been limited to rises of 1% a year, yet the cost of basic items, such as food and energy, are rising by significantly more. Even Government estimates suggest that there might be 200,000 more children living in poverty, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that there could be 1 million more children living in poverty by 2020.
	Let us look at some of the benefits that have been affected. The first is tax credits, which have a huge impact. We have called the cut to tax credits a strivers’ tax, because it affects the very people who are desperately trying to make ends meet, often working two or three jobs and patching together a few hours here and a few hours there. Then they are told that they have to find more hours, but they are simply not available—otherwise, they would be working them. Those are some of the issues that I think the Government need to address. In particular, they need to look at how they are hitting those who are in work and doing their best to try to make ends meet.
	We all know the proverb, “Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; give them a fishing rod and they can feed themselves for life.” In the same way, we need measures that can make an immediate difference to inequality. For example, Labour introduced pension credit as a fast and targeted means of taking the very poorest pensioners out of poverty. Many of them were women who had had little opportunity to earn much money outside the home.
	We also need mechanisms and structures that can continue to make a difference. In 1998 Labour introduced the national minimum wage despite fierce opposition from the Conservatives—I welcome their late conversion—
	and complete indifference from the Welsh nationalists, who absented themselves from the vote. During our time in office, we raised the national minimum wage to above the rate of inflation, but what has happened under this Government? As I warned when speaking for the Opposition in the debate on this Government’s first statutory instrument on the subject, the national minimum wage has been weakened by galloping inflation. I am glad that the Chancellor is now talking about the need to raise it to £7, but the question is when, because as the national minimum wage moves forward, so does inflation. Any rise needs to be tied to a particular time and we need to know exactly what is planned.
	We have clearly stated that we want to strengthen the national minimum wage and pursue firms that are trying to find ways of avoiding it by, for example, exceeding the limit for deductions for accommodation. We introduced the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to tackle abusive exploitation of workers, and we want to extend such provisions to the construction and care sectors, yet many Government Members want to get rid of it, just as they got rid of the Agricultural Wages Board.
	We want to incentivise wider adoption of the living wage, so we will bring in tax breaks for the first year to encourage employers to introduce it. We could make £3 billion-worth of savings simply by helping people to earn more and pay more tax, and then we would not need to pay out so much in tax credits. As the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said, and has been quoted today as saying, we will get the benefits bill down. We will do that by putting people back to work, by ensuring that the national minimum wage keeps up with inflation, and by bringing in measures to encourage employers to introduce the living wage. In those ways, we can save on tax credits, make sure that work pays, and bring the benefits bill down without hitting the poorest hardest.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Lady talks about Labour’s promise to bring the welfare bill down. I remember that on the eve of the 1997 general election, the Labour leader, Tony Blair, promised to do exactly the same thing. What went wrong over the 13 years that Labour was in power?

Nia Griffith: We are saying now that we want to tackle the reasons why people are on such poverty wages. If we try to reduce the price of fuel, that helps people with the amount of money they have in their pocket. If we look at the amount that they earn, that helps them to get the right amount of money in their pocket without it having to be topped up so much by the tax system. There are ways forward and we have to tackle these issues. It would be very welcome if this Government were prepared to look a bit more at ways of doing so.
	We will also tackle zero-hours contracts. In September, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced Labour’s plans to tackle zero-hours contracts where they exploit people. This would be achieved by banning employers from insisting that zero-hours workers be available even when there is no guarantee of any work, by stopping zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business, and by
	ending the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are, in practice, working regular hours over a sustained period.

Jonathan Edwards: As the hon. Lady is aware, Carmarthenshire county council—run, of course, by the Labour party—makes extensive use of zero-hours contracts across its portfolio of employment. Will she join me in strongly condemning its leadership for the manner in which it uses zero-hours contracts to exploit its workers?

Nia Griffith: As the hon. Gentleman points out, there is still a long way to go. There are still many things that we all need to put right. Carmarthenshire county council has decided that over the next two years the 1% pay increase should be weighted towards those on the lowest pay to try to bring them up to the living wage, thus penalising the people at the top, because that is a way of bringing in a measure of equality.
	Yes, of course there is still a lot to do. We began with the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act and the agency workers directive, but there is still a lot more to be done on the whole issue of zero-hours contracts, including using procurement, in the same way as the Welsh Government, to tackle blacklisting. When someone is blacklisted—they can no longer get employment in particular industries because their name has been passed round from employer to employer—it can be a terrible blight for a family. As in Wales, through the power of procurement we will say that we do not want public bodies to use contractors that are blacklisting people. That will be a powerful provision to raise the living standards of all those being paid from the public purse, whether by councils directly or by contractors.
	People are able to make choices and there are mitigating factors and different ways of tackling poverty. In Wales, for example, by 2015 the Welsh Government will have doubled the number of children and families benefiting from Flying Start, whereas in England 500 Sure Start centres have closed. The Jobs Growth Wales programme is ahead of target in enabling 4,000 young people a year to take on a job, mostly in the private sector. It has a very high success rate, with some 80% being offered permanent jobs at the end of their stay. The Welsh Government have also increased the funding of the pupil deprivation grant, giving it a £35 million boost to help those from the least well-off homes to achieve their potential.
	Equality is also about making those with the broadest shoulders take the biggest load. That is why we introduced the 50p tax rate, and we would reintroduce it for those earning more than £150,000 per annum. It has now emerged, from figures produced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that almost £10 billion more was raised by the 50p tax rate during the three years it was in place than was originally estimated by the Government in 2012. The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has confirmed our support for a mansion tax. We have used the tool of a bankers’ bonus tax in the past and would do so again in order to provide thousands of job opportunities for young people. We would roll out a house-building programme of 200,000 houses a year to help bring down the price of housing. Labour’s Companies Act 2006 includes provisions the Government have
	refused to implement that would enable pensioners and investors to see how pension fund managers vote on remuneration packages, which would bring transparency to what is happening at the very top of the pay scales.
	As prices continue to rise faster than wages, people are unable to cope with the expenses they face at the end of the month, which is making them ever more prey to exploitation by payday loan companies charging exorbitant interest rates and costs. That is why we have called for the Financial Conduct Authority to use its powers to implement, as soon as possible, a total cost cap on the amount that payday lenders can charge, in order to protect borrowers and ensure that Britain has a consumer credit market that works for everyone. Under pressure from Labour and other campaigners, such as Sharkstoppers and Debtbusters, the Government have now agreed to grant the newly created FCA the power to cap the total cost of credit through the Financial Services Act 2012 and to compel it to use that power through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.
	As well as capping interest rates, we need to find alternative sources of loans to help people in difficult circumstances and to put further pressure on the payday loan companies and squeeze them out of the market. With some lenders making profits of as much as £1 million a week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has called for a levy on such profits in order to raise capital for alternative and affordable sources of credit such as the credit unions. That would give an additional £13 million to credit unions to offer more financial support to people who are in need of loans.

Guto Bebb: Like the hon. Lady, I am a great supporter of the credit union movement, so I was surprised to be informed by my local credit union last Friday that the funding from the Welsh Labour Government to the credit union movement in Wales will be reduced dramatically next year.

Nia Griffith: I am not aware of that, so I will not comment on it, but we certainly need to look at alternative forms of credit in order to stop people having to go to payday loan sharks. Given the explosion in the volume of payday loan company adverts in the past few years, we have also pledged to take action to exclude them from children’s programming in the same way as alcohol and gambling advertisements are excluded.
	We very much support setting up a commission of inquiry to investigate the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty. I, together with many Labour colleagues, spoke in favour of such a commission in the debate on 13 January, and I am wondering what the Government will do about that. I urge them to set up such an inquiry as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may help the House to know that we have plenty of time left for this debate. I consider it important, however, that the parties that tabled the motion should have adequate time to complete a proper winding-up speech. I therefore propose that Back-Bench speeches should finish at about 6.30 pm. If every hon. Member who is still to speak speaks for
	approximately 10 minutes, that will give all their colleagues and fellow Members an equal opportunity to make their points.

Jim Shannon: I certainly understand the motion’s sentiments. When I looked through it, several things came to my attention—income inequality, the impact on low and middle income families, the number of workers on the minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, people in working poverty, the sharp rise in the number of people using food banks, and welfare cuts. I very much understand and would want to speak about all those points in the motion.
	At the same time, I do not totally agree with my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party about their wish to break up the Union. As a committed Unionist who sees the importance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I want the four regions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be together as one nation—one nationhood together—under the Union flag. I cannot agree with them about that, but I honestly have real affection, as they know, for each and every one of them. I want to see them in this Chamber after the referendum in Scotland and the one, whenever it is—perhaps a decade or two away—in Wales.

Angus MacNeil: I want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman fully understands that the hand of friendship is there: whenever he wants to visit Scotland after independence, I will personally make sure that he is made very welcome.

Jim Shannon: I knew that there would always be a welcome for me in the hillsides. It is a real pleasure to know that the hon. Gentleman would do that.
	Any hon. Member who works in their constituency will have come across the problems that people face, but I know that a lot is being done to combat those problems in many Departments, as should be noted. Perhaps full credit has not been given to the Government of the day for the economic turnaround that we have had. It is only fair to say that, and I want to put it on the record. I know that much blame passes from side to side in this Chamber about why we are where we are. My friends on the Government Benches point to the legacy left by the previous Government that is still being felt, and my friends on the Opposition Benches mention the austerity cuts and decisions that have been taken, but we in the middle are simply saying, “Let’s forget the blame, and focus on how we can make things better for our constituents and our country.”
	I am conscious that the debate is about fairness and inequality, which of course relate to many spheres of life. It was only fair, because the best team won, when Ireland beat Scotland 28-6. As for inequality, we saw an example of it when Ireland, the better team, beat Wales 26-3, an indication of skill and experience. Fairness and inequality therefore go into many things, and that is just one of them.

Margaret Ritchie: Irrespective of our political differences and affiliation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was Ireland as a united country that played in that rugby team?

Jim Shannon: I know that, of course, but it would not have been a team without the Ulstermen, and that—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that if he mentions the Calcutta cup on Saturday, he will be in big trouble.

Jim Shannon: Who am I to get on the wrong side of you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Of course I will not mention it.
	We are coming out of a recession, and times are tough for many people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, but may I point to the fact that there have certainly been some successes? I am thinking of the recent contracts and job creation secured in Northern Ireland, thanks in no small part to the tremendous work done by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Yesterday, for example, she secured a contract in Singapore to supply defibrillators to the Singapore army, and she has secured a new contract through her “Going Dutch” campaign. Of course, everyone here knows that Northern Ireland has a strong relationship with Holland—something to do with the 16th and 17th centuries—but we have relationships across the whole of the United Kingdom and into Europe, where Northern Ireland can have influence and be better for it.

David Simpson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are seeing some economic recovery and that is very important, but does he agree that we still have inequality and unfairness affecting the younger generation, who want to buy homes but cannot and will not be able to do so for the foreseeable future?

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—not one of us here would disagree. Just this morning, we discussed VAT and tourism in Westminster Hall, in a debate led by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). We talked about opportunities for jobs in tourism, and most of those who benefit will be young people, so we would like to see that happen.
	My hon. Friend is right: I cannot, in all fairness, paint a completely rosy picture. People are struggling, and we in this place are tasked with finding ways to help them and to help those who are trying to help others. As time has passed in this economic climate, we are seeing people who once had more than enough struggle to make ends meet. I can think of developers who, five years ago, were donating hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds to charity, but who are now seeking help with their benefits as a result not of losing the desire to work, but of losing the work to do. That is a fact facing many people in my area.
	With more and more people struggling, one of the local churches took matters into its own hands and set up the first Trussell Trust food bank in Northern Ireland. Like the Minister, I see the benefits of the food bank in bringing people together, with people energised to help others in a clear, practical and physical demonstration of love for others. Thriving Life church in Newtownards
	realised that people simply needed help and was the first to do this, but there are now 12 food banks across the Province, all manned by people who volunteer to make a difference, all stocked by a community who understand that by donating a few groceries, they can help others who are struggling.
	Since opening, the food bank in Newtownards has fed some 3,000 people and the number rises every day. Forty tonnes of food were donated by the local community. The food bank is staffed by a group of volunteers who collect, sift and sort through donations and make up the packs—they even have foodstuffs specifically for diabetic people donated by constituents. They keep a record of why people are referred to the food bank and they worked out four reasons, of which the first is low income. At the time the work was done, last summer, there were 604 referrals because of low income, almost 500 because of debt, just over 410 because of benefits changes and almost 400 because of benefit delays, so 65% to 70% of people were referred because of low income or debt and 30% to 35% because of benefit issues.
	There are 86 regular donors to the food bank, including churches, businesses, schools and community organisations. Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods—two major companies in my constituency—give regularly, and such donations are crucial to the Newtownards food bank. The sense of community has been expanded to supermarket stores such as Tesco and Asda, whose partnerships are crucial: not only do they allow store collections, but one store recently donated an additional 30% of food to what had been collected in a two-day drive. I have been pleased to be present and helping on the two occasions they did that. The big stores recognise the problem and try to help.
	Not only does our food bank provide food in a crisis but, through the organisation Christians Against Poverty operating from the church, it also provides professional assistance with budgeting and debt issues and teaches people how to live on their income. Trained workers go through people’s debts to find a manageable payment scheme and do all the set-up work. That work is very important and must happen. Not only can people get food to feed their children, but they can get help to lift them out of the dark hole of despair that many are in.
	This does not absolve the Government of doing all they can to ensure that no family in the UK goes to bed hungry. We have a role to play through ensuring that our welfare system runs smoothly, so that delays in benefits do not mean delays in provision. The Government have a massive role to play. They must begin by thanking the individuals and groups that work tirelessly to make a difference to people’s lives and to communities, and by asking how they can assist them.
	In conclusion, tough decisions have been made. I have agreed with some and disagreed with many others. I oppose the implementation of the bedroom tax when no housing is available for people to move into. We have to work in this House to make savings. At the same time, we must work hard to ensure that we change lives for the better. Further, we must ensure that when the game of blame is finished, we are taking action to make those changes.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
	I agree with some of the analysis that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) presented in his opening speech. He was right to talk about the industrial policy successes that have been seen in Germany over the past few decades. Such successes are greatly needed in this country. I want to strike just one discordant note by reminding him of the record of the previous Government in reducing child poverty in the UK by 1.1 million and in cutting pensioner poverty by two thirds.
	I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). At one point, I thought that he might set a record in Parliament by exceeding the four hours and 45 minutes that Gladstone took to deliver his Budget in 1853. However, the hon. Gentleman curtailed his remarks to below an hour. He had some interesting things to say. Again, I will pick out the points of agreement. He was right to point to the work of the many esteemed economists who have said that the share of growth that goes to people in the lower half of the income scale has been insufficient over the past 30 years.
	It was revealing that there was a philosophical difference between the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) in their approach to markets. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar pointed out that markets should serve the public interest, but the hon. Member for Angus did not seem to think that the reforms to the energy market that Labour Members want to see, which would give people a welcome freeze in energy prices to tackle the cost of living crisis that is hurting households across Scotland, were required. It was interesting to see that philosophical dissonance among the Scottish nationalist parliamentarians, who are usually a steely monolith.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is sadly no longer in his place, spoke about what has caused the reduction in the wage share. If he were in his place, I would direct him to the excellent report issued by the Resolution Foundation today, which demonstrates that 72% of the falling wage share over the past two decades has been down to growing wage inequality. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should reflect on that.
	There was a fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who reflected many of the points that were made in the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission report that was published last year. Prolonged periods of income inequality lead to massive and dramatic health and educational inequalities. I see that in my constituency and across many parts of the United Kingdom.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out in his Hugo Young lecture last night, the economic model that has persisted over the past 30 years is not fit to generate the sustainable growth shared properly across the whole of society that will be needed in the next 30 years. Oxfam showed only last week that the 85 richest people in the world have the same wealth as the 3.5 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world’s population. We need growth
	that serves the interests of people across the United Kingdom and the world. It is also important to put on record that there is absolutely no tension between tackling poverty and inequality in these islands, and our responsibilities to the poorest and most disadvantaged in other parts of the world.
	The fundamental point of this debate is that when we look at the condition of our country, we see that people are working harder. The numbers of hours worked are higher than they were before the crisis hit in 2008, but people have a lot less to show for it. We know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, taking into account tax and benefit changes, on average people are £891 a year worse off under this Government. In 2015 this will be the first Government in decades who have to go back to the electorate, unable to answer the question about whether, during their time in office, they made people better off than they were before.
	The reason our economy is not working for ordinary people and the recovery—welcome though it is—is not yet sustained and secured, and is different from those of the ‘80s and ‘90s, is that we have not seen the promised rise in business investment. Productivity has fallen in seven of the past nine quarters under this Government, and in 2012 this country saw the biggest fall in productivity in the EU, and the second biggest in the G20. We can begin to detect the reasons for that slump in productivity because people’s wages—even people in part-time employment—have steadily fallen in the past four years. That failure to have a wage, investment, and trade and export-led recovery poses severe questions about the durability of the economic model that the Government are following.
	Under that flawed model, more than 13 million people are in poverty on these islands—more than half in working households—and two in every three children are growing up in poverty in a household where at least one adult is in work. Given that, it is no surprise that three out of four people are severely concerned about what rising inequality means for every person across our country.
	Today, Shelter published data that demonstrate the impact that the lack of housing supply—a responsibility in my constituency of both this Government and the Scottish Government—is having on inequality. House prices are now 87 times what they were half a century ago, while wages have lagged way behind. Rising house prices in the past year have not been matched by the adequate supply of housing from either Government that is necessary to deal with the cost of living crisis.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out last week that in Scotland poverty among workless households has reached 54%. In my constituency, and in many like it in west and central Scotland and parts of eastern Scotland, between 600 and 700 people who are under 25 or who have not worked for two years or longer would benefit from the right to work. They want to be in work but cannot find it, and it is incumbent on both Governments to ease those people’s personal cost of living crisis by implementing policies that will give them a proper jobs guarantee. That is critical in securing greater equality for the constituents I represent, who are on an average wage of £342 a week—5% less in real terms compared with 2012.
	We have also seen the hollowing out of our jobs market, and a lack of jobs in the construction and manufacturing sectors. We have seen a welcome increase in jobs in business and the financial services, but nothing has replaced the jobs lost in construction in 2008 and 2009. It is incumbent on Government at every single tier to ensure that this hole in our labour market is repaired.
	The banking sector also needs to be reformed, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr pointed out. We have not seen the degree of lending to small businesses in this country that we have seen in Germany, and that speaks to a structural flaw in our banking system. There are insufficient banks to provide the necessary competition. We do not have a proper and fully fledged investment bank to support firms that want to invest in infrastructure. The UK Green Investment Bank does not have the borrowing powers it needs to drive investment in the renewables sector.
	Only a Labour Government, in the Scottish Parliament and in this Parliament, can get to grips with the root causes of this unbalanced recovery: the lack of a sectorally and regionally balanced industrial policy, weak business investment, skill shortages, poor exports, a worsening productivity crisis and the lowest number of new starts in housing since the 1920s. We need to earn and make our way to a real recovery in Britain with a long-term plan to raise living standards for all.

Sheila Gilmore: In some ways this is a triangular debate, because there so many different views across the House.
	We were treated to what I can only call a reprise of the 1930s from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his seat. Many of his arguments were made in this place in the 1930s on issues such as unemployment benefit. Many people said then that unemployment benefit, such as it was, was holding people back from working because it made them lazy and they did not try very hard to get jobs, and it was a very bad thing. Indeed, we could probably go back even beyond the 1930s. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s great, great, great, great ancestor in the early 19th century was probably saying something similar about the poor law—that provisions had to be made really tough and that people should not get out-relief but in-workhouse relief, because it was making them lazy and unwilling to work for low wages. This argument is constantly reproduced. Nobody—I think nobody—would say now that high unemployment went on for so long in the 1930s because unemployment benefit was too generous. Blaming the problem of unemployment on the unemployed is no new thing, but it is, frankly, wrong, and it is too simple an explanation.
	At the other extreme, we have the “wouldn’t it be nice if we could do everything” brigade, which is how much of the yes to independence campaign is being waged in Scotland. This is the idea that we can do it all and can have everything: a lower retirement age, better social security benefits and lower taxes all at one and the same time, and that this is the solution to all our problems. Back in the real world—which, I have to say, will be the world facing a Scottish Government whether under independence or not—there are real challenges and we have to consider how we can deal with them properly.
	Other myths have been perpetrated. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) wanted us to feel that he and many of his colleagues would like to reduce inequality, too, and that the way to do it is to get the economy back on its feet; there would be no reason why inequality would not then be reduced. The problem—he is no longer in his place to intervene to tell me I am wrong—is that I suspect he thinks that the Conservative Government in the years between 1979 and 1997 were right in the way they ran the economy. The trouble is that during those years inequality rose at a very fast rate. In these debates, Members frequently say that it continued to rise under the Labour Government, but it rose far less and the big rises in inequality came during the years of Conservative government. During those years—when, in the view of Members such as the hon. Member for Bedford, the economy was getting back on the right path—inequality rose substantially, so if some of us are less than convinced that this Government want genuinely to deal with inequality, we have historical precedents on which to base that opinion.

Stephen Crabb: We have had some discussion about income inequality. Let me put it on the record once again that income inequality reached record levels during the previous Parliament and under the previous Labour Government. Income inequality is falling under this Government.

Sheila Gilmore: The big increase in income inequality was clearly between 1979 and 1997. Any graph will make that quite clear.
	There is a danger in perpetuating the myth mentioned by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I apologise to the House for missing some speeches, including the one by the Member who represents the Western Isles—I am sorry, but as a lowland Scot I genuinely find it difficult to pronounce the name of his constituency in Gaelic so I shall just call it the Western Isles. I missed his virtuoso performance because I was sitting on a Public Bill Committee, not because I did not want to hear what he had to say.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said that there was no difference between a Labour Government and the current Government. As I have said in some of my interventions, that is not correct. It is dangerous to say so, too, because it makes a lot of people think that there is no point in voting or trying to change things because Governments do not make any difference and because there is no difference between the parties.
	For example, the reduction in pensioner poverty during the years of Labour government should not be forgotten. Many pensioners will not forget that. A lot of what that Government did created the base on which this Government propose to build with the single-tier pension. As I have said before, it was not the triple lock that produced the highest cash payment to pensioners but inflation—an inflationary rise made necessary by the Government’s own—[Interruption.] I apologise to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, for not seeing her try to intervene.

Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great achievements of the previous Labour Government on pensioner income,
	in particular, was the introduction of pension credit, which took every single pensioner out of absolute poverty? Not one was left in absolute poverty at the end of that Labour Government.

Sheila Gilmore: I entirely agree. That was a hugely important step forward, but we also addressed the issue of getting people back to work. One myth is that we are not at all interested in getting people back to work, but the tax credit system did a lot to help people to get into work, particularly single parents—350,000 of them were helped into work as a result of that policy—and that is important.
	I accept that employment for those who are fit and able to work is an important prerequisite of increasing their income—remaining on benefits is not the way to increase one’s income and has not been under any Government—but that is not always sufficient as a marker that people can become better off. It is a necessary beginning, but it has not been sufficient and we must consider the hours of work that people are doing and the low wages that many receive. If we do not tackle that, people in work will still be very poor, as they are now. That is why the child poverty measures show that 60% of those in child poverty have members of their families in work.
	We should look at what is happening in places such as Scotland, instead of assuming that these problems have been magically addressed, because there are still problems, some of which, in relation to social care, I alluded to earlier. I am not saying that free social care should not be looked at—it was introduced not by the current Scottish Government, but by the previous Administration—but it does present severe challenges, and if we do not discuss those honestly, we will confuse people about what we can achieve, and then no wonder they become cynical. Those in Scotland struggling with poor quality care know that. In addition, there are issues in Scotland in the education field. Universities give free tuition, but as a result the colleges, which are hugely important for social mobility—they give people a second chance in education—have been starved of finance. That is important.
	To sum up, we have to be somewhere in the middle and make real changes in people’s lives, not pontificate about what might be possible in some wonderful place where the sun always shines and no one is ever poor.

Pamela Nash: The sun is certainly not shining in Scotland; I have had to send my constituency office staff home because of the snow back in Airdrie.
	I am delighted to make a late contribution to this debate, the title of which—fairness and inequality—is the essence of why I got into politics. I am sure that many of my colleagues, at least on the Opposition Benches, would say the same. Much has been said already about the tragedy of in-work poverty, so I shall restrict my comments to the impact of welfare reform and Government cuts on inequality, and I will add my voice, and that of my constituents, to the call for a commission of inquiry to look into the impact of welfare reform and the Government’s other austerity measures on inequality and poverty.

Jonathan Edwards: I believe the hon. Lady when she says that fairness and inequality were why she entered politics in the first place, but will she tell the House how she will vote later when we divide on our motion?

Pamela Nash: It will not come as a surprise that while I agree with the majority of the motion, I am disappointed by its tone. It does not recognise what the Labour Government achieved on inequality between 1997 and 2010—in fact, it attacks that Government—so I will be abstaining, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to put on the record my reasons for doing so.
	In my region of north Lanarkshire, the welfare reforms will take £55 million out of the economy every year, which affects not just individuals whose benefits are being cut, but local businesses in our town centres which are now struggling to cope with a vast reduction in customer numbers. That is damaging the development and visible progress of the last 20 years, during which time we have struggled to repair the damage done to our depleted heavy industry and manufacturing in the west of Scotland.
	Partly owing to our industrial heritage, my constituency has relatively high levels of disability and chronic illness—as a result of old injuries from those days—and that has made my community particularly vulnerable to the welfare cuts. Many households have a member living with a disability or illness, as I see every day. I have been particularly perturbed by the scrapping of crisis loans, which is affecting the most vulnerable in our society, and although many of the changes have been mitigated by the Scottish welfare fund, many people are still being left in dire straits. Every day I see people whose benefits have been sanctioned and who are no longer entitled to a crisis loan.

Anne Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as disappointed as I was to learn that, according to figures published today, the Scottish welfare fund has been underspent by a considerable amount. Obviously, those who are losing out are the most vulnerable families. It is a great shame that the SNP Government did not see their way to ensuring that the money was properly spent and properly allocated.

Pamela Nash: That does indeed upset me. When people come to me and tell me that their benefits have been subject to sanctions, it usually proves to have been due to an honest error; but are we really saying that, in this day and age, even those who have been sanctioned through their own fault should be starving? The only places that I can tell those people to turn to are my local food banks—and food banks throughout the country are confirming that benefit sanctions are one of the main reasons why people are going to them to obtain food just to survive.
	I know that time is limited, so I shall try to keep the rest of my comments brief. The myriad statistics that have been shouted across the Chamber today, and all the political posturing, have sometimes made it difficult to bear in mind that individual people with whose cases we all deal as constituency Members are affected by the cuts that are taking place. An old classmate of mine from primary school came to see me a few weeks ago. He is a former serviceman, and when he came out of the Army he became a security guard, but he is now struggling
	to find employment. How can he be expected to find a job at a time when more than 2 million people are still unemployed, and at a time when many other servicemen and servicewomen will be joining him in the dole queue as further job cuts in the military are announced?
	Most of the jobs that will be available to that ex-serviceman will be part-time jobs, or jobs involving zero-hours contracts. Moreover, he depends on housing benefit to keep a roof over his head, and he has been hit by the bedroom tax. His child’s bedroom has been deemed to be a spare room by the Department for Work and Pensions, because the child also has a bedroom in the mother’s house, so he has had to pay bedroom tax for a long time in order to ensure that he still has regular access to the child.
	The Scottish Parliament recently passed a budget to fund complete mitigation of the bedroom tax. I welcome that measure, and I am glad that the Scottish Parliament eventually listened to the Scottish Affairs Committee—of which I am a member, although we are not allowed into the Parliament—but many people have already been affected by the tax, and I have to say that the “smoke and mirrors” approach taken by the SNP to one of the clearest examples of UK Government policy making the poor poorer has been nothing short of shameful. They have sat on their hands and done nothing when they could have taken action.
	The UK Government made it very clear that the Scottish Government had the power to mitigate the bedroom tax long ago. The SNP said that there was no cash, and then found £20 million. It subsequently said that its hands were tied, but the Scottish Affairs Committee was told by the Scotland Office months ago that that was rubbish, and that the Scottish Government already had the power to mitigate the tax for all the people who were suffering in Scotland. I ask them now to think about the people who have suffered since the bedroom tax was introduced 10 months ago, and to consider apologising to those people and telling them how they will be recompensed.
	As I have said, I regret the tone of the motion, which does not acknowledge the progress made under the Labour Government in alleviating the poverty of families both in and out of work. I hope that the Government will heed the many important points that have been raised by members of all parties today, and that they will establish a commission of inquiry to examine the impact of welfare reform—on the most vulnerable in particular—and to investigate inequality throughout the United Kingdom. I also hope, for my constituents’ sake, that the Scottish Government will immediately take advantage of every lever that their devolved powers have made available to them to protect the people of Scotland, and will not continue to pretend that they are powerless to tackle inequality without independence.

Eilidh Whiteford: Inequality is one of the great political scandals of our age, and it is important that we have had a chance to debate the subject at length today. I have been somewhat disappointed, however, at how few speeches there have been from Government Members. Nevertheless, what we have lacked in quantity we have made up for in quality, with a number of substantial and considered speeches from both sides.
	Over the past three decades, the gap between the rich and the poor in our society and elsewhere has grown exponentially. The rewards of economic growth have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small minority, while those in the lower half of the income spectrum are being increasingly deprived of the just rewards for their efforts. We on these Benches have made the case that inequality, on the scale that we see in the UK and internationally, is bad for all of us. It is in no one’s interest to have a society that is so divided by extremes of income and so damaged by social deprivation, but it is especially bad for those people who find themselves trapped on low incomes and who have seen their spending power and social mobility reduced dramatically over the past 25 years.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate today. It has tackled issues as diverse as land ownership, fuel poverty, health inequalities, taxation and social policy, as well as a range of other disparate policy issues that would normally be debated separately. All those topics have been underpinned by the issue of economic inequality and the income gap that has grown so wide over recent decades. We have argued that inequality is not inevitable, and that it is a political choice. The Government have at their disposal the fiscal levers to enable progressive and more redistributive measures, but in recent times we have seen tax and benefit policies that have allowed the gulf between the haves and the have-nots to widen. A number of hon. Members have pointed out that the impact of the tax and benefit changes has fallen disproportionately on those in the lower half of the income distribution, particularly those in the lowest quintile, who have paid the highest price for economic austerity.

Angus MacNeil: It is important to bear in mind that redistribution applies not only after tax but before tax. In regard to productivity gains, we need to ensure that people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Eilidh Whiteford: My hon. Friend makes a useful point.
	It is also important to note that those fiscal levers are not the only tools at the Government’s disposal for tackling inequality. Addressing the underlying drivers of wage inequality requires sustained effort and a fresh mindset about the policy choices that we can make to further a more equitable model of economic growth and to build a fairer, more inclusive and less divided society.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) outlined some of the positive ways in which equitable growth could be pursued in Wales. He opened the debate by drawing our attention to the geographical distribution of inequality across the UK, and argued convincingly that while much of Government policy was orientated towards the needs of London and its surrounds, the consequences of that for the other nations and regions of the UK could be dire. Many of us have paid a heavy price for London’s prosperity.
	It is notable that, with a few honourable exceptions, the speakers in today’s debate have come from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps that shows how seriously the issue of inequality—which is distinct from, but related to, poverty—is taken in these islands. It is obviously a pertinent issue in the context of Scotland’s referendum later this year, as we weigh up the two futures
	that are opening up before us and consider not only the benefits of making policy decisions based on our own values and aspirations but the uncertain consequences of continuing along the path that the UK seems determined to follow, with wealth and opportunity being increasingly concentrated among a small elite.

Anne Begg: Obviously, if we are going to pursue a more equal society, we will have to ensure that those at the top do not get richer. What are the SNP’s policies for ensuring that those who are already rich become poorer in order to narrow the income gap?

Eilidh Whiteford: Had the hon. Lady been here for the earlier part of the debate, she would have heard some back-and-forth chat about tax rates and such like. I will not rehearse those arguments. For Labour, there still seems to be a zero sum game in which rich and poor have to share out a very small cake. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made earlier was that if we want to tackle inequality, we need to grow the economy. Once we have done that, we will be in a much better position to tackle inequality and poverty alike.

William Bain: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: I will not give way. I want to make some progress; I have a lot to get through in a limited amount of time.
	The extremes of income inequality that we see today had their genesis in the late 1970s. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) challenged the motion’s wording about the upward trend of inequality in the UK. I am prepared to grant him that, in the early years of the Labour Government after 1997, there was a stem in the rising tide of inequality, but if we look at the long-term historical perspective we find that it is clear that from 2003 onwards inequality started to rise again. We can argue the piece about that, and I would not take away from the Labour party things it managed to achieve in government that were beneficial to people, but I question the lack of responsibility we have seen from Members on both sides of the House. They have tried to blame each other for not only the financial collapse, but on how we have been dealing with the aftermath. It is incumbent on us all to take responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves and work out how we can build a more prosperous future for everyone, in which the rewards of our prosperity are shared more evenly.
	Today, the richest 10% of the population across the developed world have incomes nine times greater than those of the poorest 10%, but in the UK the margins are even more stark, with the richest 10% having incomes 12 times greater than the incomes of the poorest 10%. Can we really say that a person’s contribution is worth 12 times that of another person? I find that a difficult piece of maths to do; I certainly do not think I work 12 times harder than people who are earning a lot less than me in my constituency, as I know they work very hard in difficult and often demanding jobs.
	According to the OECD, the UK is now placed 28th out of 34 in its inequality league, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Of course that is not the only way in which to measure inequality, and some commentators
	who use a wider range of measures consider the UK’s inequalities to be even more stark. For example, Professor Dorling of Oxford university considers the UK to be the fourth most unequal country in the developed world, despite being one of the wealthiest. Those of us who aspire to live in a fairer, more equitable society will have been shocked by the research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in December, to which reference has been made. It showed not just that 13 million people in the UK are living in poverty, but, for the first time, that more than half of those people live in working families.
	We used to hear the mantra that work is the route out of poverty. For people who are able to secure better-paid, full-time jobs that is undoubtedly true, but the reality of modern Britain is that now most poor people are working, but that work no longer guarantees a life above the breadline. About 5 million people in the UK are paid below what would be considered a living wage, and millions of working people find they have to depend on the benefits system to top their income up to adequate levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made the point that the report published yesterday by the Living Wage Commission showed that 21% of the work force are being paid below a living wage, which is a 9% increase in the past 12 months. People cannot get out of low-paid work. One of the most important points in the report, which echoes comments made by the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), was that once people are in a low-paid job, it is extremely difficult for them to get out of it. Only 18% of those people manage to get out of minimum wage work in the course of their working lives; a decade later those people are still stuck in those jobs. So work is a route out of poverty only for those people who have well-paid jobs.
	A number of hon. Members, the first being the Minister, mentioned food banks. We have seen a huge increase in their use over the past two years, which is a shocking development in a wealthy country. We know that that increase has been driven by changes to the benefits system, particularly by delays in benefits payments and the increased use of sanctions. It has also been driven by the rising cost of living. One thing that has shocked me most in my constituency is the number of working people who are now dependent on food aid parcels. Half a million people in the UK now depend on food aid, and instead of squabbling about whose fault it is and whose Government the levels rose most under, we should be trying to tackle the problem and ensure that people have enough to eat.
	Ours is a mature democracy with a well-developed welfare state, but the tax and benefits system remains the main lever through which Governments mitigate poverty and inequality. The recent reforms of the past couple of years have been overwhelmingly regressive and have exacerbated hardship. The promise from the Chancellor in recent weeks that £60 billion of further cuts are on the way shows that there will be no respite for disadvantaged people in modern Britain. Of all the regressive measures we have seen in the past few years, perhaps the changes to housing benefit best illustrate both the willingness of the Government to squeeze the
	incomes of the poorest households and the London-centric drivers of policy making. The under-occupancy penalty, or the bedroom tax as it is better known, is punishing disadvantaged people in our society who live in social housing and need help with their rent. It is squeezing the incomes of those who are already most hard pressed financially and driving the most extreme forms of inequality. In Scotland, around 80% of those affected by the bedroom tax are also affected by disability, which highlights that link between poverty and disability. Disabled people are still disadvantaged in the workplace and often find it hard to make ends meet. The proportion of disabled people in the UK as a whole is slightly smaller than it is in Scotland, but it still represents two-thirds of the households affected by the bedroom tax.
	We also have a structural mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants. Some 23% of the housing stock is one-bedroom accommodation, yet 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom house. Even if it was in anyone’s interest to play musical chairs with housing allocations, there are simply not enough one-bedroom homes to go round. Provision of one-bedroom lets in the private sector also falls well short of demand and, in any case, costs the public purse considerably more than renting from social landlords. As well as pushing low-income households into debt, the policy is costing more than it saves, and the Government’s persistence in pursuing the policy is foolhardy in the extreme.
	I know that the Scottish Government have already made extensive efforts to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax by increasing the budget for discretionary housing payments to the legal limit. In answer to the strange and bizarre interventions by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), there are legal constraints on how much the Scottish Government can top up those payments.

Pamela Nash: rose—

Eilidh Whiteford: No, I will not waste time taking an intervention from the hon. Lady. Her earlier intervention was really quite unbecoming. There has been cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament—not just from the Labour party and the SNP but from the Liberal Democrats who are represented on the Government Benches—to increase the discretionary housing payments budget to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, who is in his place, to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the matter so that when the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is in London on Thursday, she can meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to progress the issue further.
	Transfers made to low-income households are the major tool through which our tax and benefits system compensates for the low-wage culture and, in a small way, mitigate the inequalities created by the structure of our labour market. Over the past two years, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted, changes to tax credits have created significant reductions in the incomes of families in low-paid work. Although some very low earners have been lifted out of tax, the gains have been more than cancelled out by cuts to tax credits and the freeze in the uprating of other benefits, which have fallen in real-terms value. That point was also made at length by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
	The Government’s own distributional analysis of their tax and benefit changes shows that the lower half of the income spectrum has paid the greatest price of austerity, while tax cuts at the very top end have allowed the gap to grow between the haves and the have-nots.
	A number of Members have drawn our attention to the fact that women make up a disproportionate share of the low-paid work force. In an early intervention, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made the point that the Government have made tax adjustments of £14 billion, £11 billion of which have fallen on women. It is unfortunate that he was not able to stay to make a longer contribution, as I am sure that it would have been worth while.
	Women are more likely to be in low-paid, part-time work. They are more likely to be working in insecure, temporary jobs, or on zero-hours contracts, and more likely to be working in jobs for which they are overqualified. More than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, women are still paid 12% less than men. When we look at who is poor in the UK, we find that women, especially women with children, are over-represented. When we look at who has been impacted most by the UK’s benefit reforms, we see women once again in the front line. That is largely because women take on the greater share of responsibility for child care and for looking after elderly relatives. Child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit are all paid to the main carer of children, and when the changes were introduced, 83% of in-work families receiving those benefits had a woman payee.
	The second half of the 20th century saw women enter the labour market in ever-greater numbers, to some extent masking the ever-widening gulf in wages by increasing overall household incomes. None the less, women are losing out heavily and as a society we lose out because women are not reaching their full potential. According to a recent report by the Resolution Foundation, two thirds of mothers find the cost of child care a barrier to working more. The UK labour market has some of the lowest participation rates by mothers of any OECD country. Some women make a choice not to work when their children are small and choose to take a break in their working life. Many, particularly those with more than one child, want to work part time, but most women find that their choices are financially constrained. There is clear evidence that many women who want to work full time or work more hours face barriers because they cannot afford child care. They cannot get work in the hours for which they are available, or they cannot get the kind of work for which they are qualified. We all know families in which a second earner has given up work because they cannot afford the cost of child care for pre-school children. That is particularly the case for people on low and average earnings, but I know men and women on graduate-level salaries who have given up work because child care for more than one child, plus commuting costs, adds up to working for free. That is bad for families in the longer term, but it also extremely bad for our economy.
	Child care has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and in my view, a step change in child care would be the single most transformative policy that the UK Government could make in tackling inequality, because it would boost prosperity, improve work incentives for parents, empower women in the workplace, and would help to tackle child poverty. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark
	Durkan), in an important intervention, discussed the Child Poverty Act 2010, and the important gains that were won with cross-party support in the House in the previous Parliament. This week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on child poverty in Scotland that showed that, although gains have been made, progress is under real threat because of the austerity measures introduced by the Government.
	Child poverty in Scotland has fallen by twice as much as in England. Most reductions in poverty are attributable to improvements in employment rates, but it has been argued that the additional fall in child poverty in Scotland, where it is now 40% lower, is due to a shift to full working—both parents in the family are working, and at least one of them is full time. That has not been replicated across the UK. I have no doubt that that is partly due to the fact that in Scotland we have the best child-care package anywhere in these islands. We have to go significantly further if we are to compete with the best in Europe and have ambitions for the next generation. Otherwise, we face the threat of more and more children falling into child poverty.
	The Scottish Government have made huge efforts to try to ensure that all our young people have opportunities. A point made early in the debate by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), which was not picked up very much, concerned the issue of skills, which are at the heart of how we increase prosperity and close the wage gap between high earners and lower earners. The Scottish Government have introduced the “Opportunities for All” programme, which means that every single school leaver has the offer of a positive destination to take up when they leave. We have record numbers of young people in apprenticeships. We also have record numbers of people completing apprenticeships. Some 92% of young people who complete an apprenticeship are in work six months later, with 79% of them in full-time work. Over 90% of our school leavers are now in positive destinations, and 89.5% of them are in work nine months later, or in education or training. That is the highest it has ever been, and it shows what can be done when we put our mind to it.
	Today’s debate shows exactly why Scotland needs the full fiscal levers of a normal country to tackle inequality, why Wales needs the power to grow its economy and improve the prospects of its people, and why it is in the interests of the whole UK not to bury its head in the sand any longer but take responsibility for the failures of the past and respond to the needs of our citizens in the next generation. The motion calls for a commission to investigate the impact of welfare and spending cuts on poverty and inequality, which reflects the wishes of the House expressed on 13 January. Importantly, it goes further, because we cannot really tackle poverty, particularly the kind of poverty that we have in the UK, unless we understand inequality and take steps to tackle its long-term drivers. That is why I fully support the motion, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House who have listened carefully to the debate will join us in the Lobby. The motion would allow us to address the shortcomings of the past, and I hope that all Members will join us in building a fairer and more equal society.

Stephen Crabb: With the leave of the House, I start by thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for summarising the debate in her usual
	intelligent way, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging and interesting debate on subjects of huge importance to Members on both sides of the House—fairness and inequality.
	I will meet head on some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Government by saying that no Government Member is painting a rosy picture about the challenges that many households and families still face. None of us is complacent about the issues that we have been debating. As the country is still recovering from the economic trauma that it was subjected to between 2008 and 2010, much progress remains to be made in seeing wages increase, seeing the emerging economic recovery spread to all parts of the country, and ensuring that people from all walks of life in all parts of the UK can share in that emerging economic recovery.
	We are not painting a rosy picture about that recovery, but neither do we subscribe to the view that has been put consistently today by Opposition Members that the growth is somehow not real; that it is somehow patchy and fuelled by London and the south-east and what is happening in the housing market. If they take time to look at what the statistics tell them, they will see that the emerging recovery is broadly balanced across all the sectors of the economy—manufacturing, construction, tourism, services and exports. Progress must still be made to ensure that the recovery reaches all parts of the UK, but just as three years ago they were deficit deniers, as we come to the end of this Parliament they have become growth deniers. They deny that the growth and the recovery are taking place.
	This evening I will be urging hon. Members to reject the motion, because at its heart is the biggest risk of all to the emerging economic recovery, which is a return to the failed economics of more spending, more borrowing and more debt. Just as so many Government Members this afternoon have asked where the equity is in saddling our children and grandchildren with yet more debt, the fair, compassionate, progressive thing to do is to meet that challenge head on and see the deficit come down.
	In the minutes that remain I will refer to a number of the speeches made by hon. Members. I pay tribute to the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who spoke with typical passion and made a plea for fairness. However I take issue with his description of Wales as a colonial economy. I absolutely reject that term. Wales is not a colonial economy. The economy of Wales is highly integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. One reason why support for separatism is so low in the Principality is that real people out there understand how integrated the Welsh economy is with the rest of the United Kingdom. They reject the separatism of Plaid Cymru and the Opposition.
	We had a long and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He started by introducing the philosophical challenge of what to do with a box of chocolates among children. I disagreed with a lot of his economic analysis, but I strongly agreed with him when he said that behind all the economic statistics that we are talking about are real lives. Members on both sides of the House should not lose sight of the fact that when we talk about record
	numbers of people returning to work and unemployment falling in our constituencies, those are real lives. People are making their way back into the jobs market, upping their skills and getting new confidence, which will make a powerful difference in our communities.
	The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the decline of social mobility. I put on record that both his nation of Scotland and mine of Wales at one time were beacons of social mobility. There was a time in Wales and Scotland when increasingly it did not matter who one’s mum and dad were, what street one grew up in or what jobs one’s parents did. There was a progressive trend of social mobility. We have gone into reverse on that, and that is one of the great tragedies of what has happened in the economy in recent decades.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) made what I think was the speech of the day. He spoke with expertise and experience about small businesses being the engines of job creation, not only in Wales but across the UK. Members on both sides of the House should pay tribute to him for the work he has done, particularly on interest rate swaps and on challenging the banks on the way in which they have treated small businesses in recent years. He spoke powerfully and passionately about the ethical and moral underpinning of our welfare reforms and what we are trying to achieve. It is not just about deficit reduction, and it is not about attacking the poor or anything so absurd; it is about seeing lives changed and communities that were blighted by worklessness unlock their potential so that they can increasingly share in the emerging economic growth.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) drew on his expertise on fuel poverty and energy markets. I promise to write to him, or to ensure that one of my ministerial colleagues does, on the specific point he raised. He mentioned pensioner poverty, as did other Members, so let us remind ourselves of the figures. In 2011-12, 1.6 million pensioners were in relative poverty, which is close to the lowest rate recorded. Pensioners are less likely to be in relative low income than the population as a whole. The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement.
	The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) seemed a little confused and uncertain about what is happening to income inequality, so let us put on the record what the statistics show: income inequality is falling under this Government, having reached record levels under the previous Labour Government. I very much agree with his comment that young people are not only our future—they are more important than that—but our today. That is why we are making efforts to see youth unemployment fall, just as unemployment is falling right across the country. We take seriously the opportunities facing our young people and are in no way complacent about the challenges that today’s generation of young people will face. However, let me remind Opposition Members that if we are serious about the kind of future young people will face, we absolutely must reject the terms of the motion, which calls for a return to more borrowing, more spending, more deficit and more debt.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made a characteristically entertaining speech in which he made some extremely important points about business being the generator of growth and the creator
	of jobs in the economy. He used the analogy of a rising tide carrying all boats, but it is business and private sector growth that makes that tide rise. We absolutely agree.
	The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) drew on her expertise in health inequality and made a characteristically well-judged speech. I just remind her that in the nations of Wales and Scotland, which we have focused on today, many of the policy levers that relate to health inequality—housing, health and education, for example—lie with the devolved Governments. I encourage her to look at what is happening in Wales. If she studies that in detail, she might have some serious and difficult questions for her Labour colleagues in Cardiff.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made an excellent speech reinforcing the point that if we are serious about fairness, we must take seriously the issue of what kind of future our young people and their children will face. That is why we remain absolutely committed to reducing the deficit and restoring stability, discipline and order to our national finances.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) spoke about zero-hours contracts, which she clearly regards as a negative thing. The number of zero-hours contracts in the economy was the same in 2013 as it was in 2000, so the idea that there has been some kind of explosion in the number is just not correct. If she really regards them as such a bad thing, she should speak to her colleagues running Carmarthenshire—

Pete Wishart: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 11, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading’s Functions in relation to Estate Agent etc) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 5 December 2013, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 12 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

The County Court

That the draft County Court Jurisdiction Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH AND AZERBAIJAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Stephen Pound: May I share with the House the fact that this month marks the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, which is also known as the mountainous Karabakh republic? Many people know very little about the political situation in the south Caucasus, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the noble Lady, Baroness Cox in the other House, for frequently raising the subject. My purpose in raising it in this Adjournment debate is that the Minsk process has sought to resolve the conflict since the ceasefire 20 years ago, but now appears to be stalled, if not frozen. I seek tonight to try to apply the gentlest of nudges to the three Minsk co-chairs, to see if we cannot make progress.
	It is difficult to understand and almost impossible to appreciate the full extent and horror of the war that raged between February 1988 and May 1994 in Nagorno-Karabakh. One has to go back many centuries if one wants to discover its origin, but, for the sake of brevity, Mr Speaker, and to avoid testing your patience and indulgence, I shall refer to a couple of simple and basic facts. In that war—and it was a war; it was not a regional conflict, a local conflagration or skirmish—on one side was an Azerbaijani army of 42,000 people, of whom 11,000 died, and on the Armenian side was an army of 20,000, of whom 6,000 died. There were Afghan mujaheddin and Chechen volunteers fighting on the side of the Azeris, and Armenian volunteers and people from the diaspora fighting on the other side. It was an extraordinarily bloody war, and I think that, because there was UK-British involvement in the early days of the creation of the boundaries of these republics, we have a duty to do what we can to nudge the matter forward.
	After the Russian revolution in 1917, the three south Caucasian republics, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, together formed a trans-Caucasian federation, which sadly did not last long, collapsing after three months. British troops occupied a great deal of the south Caucasus, particularly Baku in Azerbaijan, in 1919, pending the Paris peace conference—a period in which we were rightly involved in the area. However, the Soviet army invaded and set up something called the Kavburo—the Caucasus bureau—which at the time voted 4:3 in favour of the area we know as the mountainous Karabakh republic or Nagorno-Karabakh being allocated to Armenia.
	You will know, Mr Speaker, as will many in this House, that the dividing line between the two communities is very deep and very ancient. Armenia has been a Christian country since 301 AD; the vast majority of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh are Christian, and the majority of the population of Azerbaijan Muslim. There has been a degree of tension, which has spilled over into bloody ethnic conflict.

Jim Shannon: Churches had to register in Azerbaijan by 1 January 2010. Any house churches active after that date were raided by police and
	state authorities, with church leaders arrested and sent to jail. Should not our Government make representations to the Azerbaijan Government to stop the persecution of Christians and actions against the churches?

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman’s record on addressing the persecution of Christians is second to none, and I hope that his words reverberate and are heard beyond this Chamber.
	After the Caucasus bureau voted for Nagorno-Karabakh being allocated to Armenia, there was an intervention by the Communist party leader in Azerbaijan, Nariman Narimanov, who reversed that decision. He was guided in this by the people’s commissar for nationalities—better known to us as Joseph Stalin.
	Things came to a head in 1985, when Gorbachev was elected in the Soviet Union. In the ensuing feeling of perestroika—the slight lifting of the yoke—there were demonstrations in Yerevan and Baku, which were very much about determination of what was then called an enclave between the two countries. In February 1988, there were skirmishes near Askeran in Artsakh, on the Stepanakert-Agdam road. Then there was what is still—rightly—called the pogram in Sumgait, in which many Armenians were killed in the most horrendous circumstances. There were riots for three days and then the Soviet Army intervened. As if that were not enough, in December 1988 there was an enormous earthquake, which killed 25,000 people in what was then called Leninakan and is now Gyumri.
	That period saw increasing tension along the borders, including in January 1990 an air and rail blockade by the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, another pogrom, and finally Gorbachev declaring a state of emergency. There was fighting throughout the Azeri cities, and then, in spring 1991, Operation Ring, in which Ayas Mutalibov—the Azerbaijani leader, who was seen at the time as one of the new wave of non-communist leaders that included Yeltsin, who had just been elected in Russia, and Levon Ter-Petrossian in Armenia—launched a military offensive against Armenians in the Shahumyan area, with a view to ethnically cleansing the area. That is when the diaspora, personified in some ways by Monte Melkonian, who was one of the great leaders, realised that it had to support ethnic Armenians in their homeland.
	Gorbachev resigned in December 1991. That allowed the old Soviet Union to collapse in the south Caucasus region. Azerbaijan voted to rescind the autonomous oblast status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenians did the same and declared independence on 6 January 1992.
	Then the war started, and it was a war. There was a complete imbalance between the two armies. Together, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia had 170 tanks and 360 armoured personnel carriers, but no fighter aircraft. The Azeris had 300 tanks, the same number of APCs and, crucially, 170 fighter aircraft. They were helicopter gunships—the old Mil Mi-24s that were left over from the Russian retreat. Throughout this sad and sorry story, almost all the weapons, armaments, ordnance and artillery pieces were left by the retreating Russians. It was like there was a vast warehouse of weaponry throughout the south Caucasus—an enormous bonfire waiting for the spark.
	There were appalling scenes throughout the war. There were accusations of atrocities on both sides, many of which have been investigated. In May 1992, the war took a crucial turn when the Armenians captured the headland or redoubt of the Azerbaijan army in the area that most people now know as Shushi, but which at that time was called Shusha. At that time, much of the fighting was being done by Chechens, who were fighting for jihad. Their leader, Shamil Basayev, referred to the soldiers of the so-called Dashnak battalion, which is also known as the Dashnaktsutyun or the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, as the only people who had ever defeated him.
	I could describe the war further, but that is not really the point of this debate. Towards the end of the war, in January 1994, even by the horrific standards of modern warfare, things had got to an almost unbearably painful phase. Azerbaijan extended the call-up to boys of 16. The war entered what objective, independent observers call the “human wave” phase. Andrei Sakharov, who is often quoted in this Chamber, said at the time:
	“For Azerbaijan the issue of Karabakh is a matter of ambition, for the Armenians of Karabakh, it is a matter of life or death”.
	The peace process started. In 1994, it was recognised that it was, in effect, a frozen conflict. The Minsk group, with its three co-chairs, who are currently Igor Popov from the Russian Federation, Jacques Faure from France and James Warlick of the USA, is working as hard as it can to move matters forward. I hope and believe that it is doing so with the support, knowledge and understanding of Her Majesty’s Government. The co-chairs visited Baku and Yerevan just this month.
	However, matters along the line of contact are not good. Twenty soldiers were killed along the ceasefire line in 2013, despite the existence of the ceasefire. There were nearly 200 ceasefire violations between 2 and 8 February of this year. Often, the violations involve people firing across the border, including snipers, but there are also more violent incidents. The line of contact is porous and is coming under increased pressure.
	People will be asking themselves the question, as I would be if I were listening to this debate, “What can we do?” Every Member of Parliament is inundated by letters saying, “Please put pressure on country X or nation Y and do something about it.” What can we do in this case? I think that we have a crucial role to play. There is not a massive amount of trade between the United Kingdom and Armenia. Fewer than 10 UK firms are active in Armenia. We gave Armenia £882,000 in aid last year. I pay credit to our remarkable joint ambassadors in Yerevan, Kathy Leach and Jonathan Aves, who work extraordinarily hard to progress British trade interests in the area. However, we could do much more. By contrast, Azerbaijan was given £1,335,000 in aid over the same period, and we have very close trade links. The United Kingdom is actually the 15th largest trade partner of Azerbaijan, and the major role of BP in oil extraction, refining and marketing cannot be underestimated.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Azerbaijan. Our trading links go much further than that, and indeed, we are by far the biggest investor in
	Azerbaijan through BP and other companies in that sector. The country is increasingly important to the British economy, and I hope he will reflect that in his comments.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful, and I place on record my appreciation for the hon. Gentleman and the work he is undertaking in that area. To show how important that link is, when President Ilham Aliyev made critical comments fairly recently—I think it was on 17 October 2012—in connection with British Petroleum’s output from the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli field, our ambassador to Azerbaijan, Peter Bateman, said:
	“I shall be calling on BP in London next week to find out what more, if anything, we can do to help”.
	That shows a remarkable degree of association with the British Government, and of involvement at a very high level. Indeed, the FCO was vital in negotiating what was widely called the “contract of the century”, which was signed in Azerbaijan in 1994. Co-operation was so close that when we first posted ambassadorial staff to the Republic of Azerbaijan they were located in BP’s offices in Baku. The relationship continues and prospers. In fact, the Foreign Secretary attended the signing ceremony for the final investment decision on the Shah Deniz 2 project in Baku.

Helen Goodman: The Foreign Secretary told me in response to a parliamentary question that he raised human rights issues on that visit. Does my hon. Friend know, and will he press the Minister on whether the Foreign Secretary also raised the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh?

Stephen Pound: Like many Members, I was in the Chamber for the debate that my hon. Friend initiated on that issue, but I think, with respect, that the Minister may be a more appropriate person to respond. I am not entirely privy to every detail of the negotiations and discussions, but I certainly recall the debate on this important issue.
	There are some signs of movement. Just this week, the United States ambassador to Azerbaijan, Richard Morningstar, issued a statement to say that the United States is being even more active in resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than in the past. He said:
	“I can understand the frustration of the Azerbaijani people about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are committed to trying to bring about resolution. It is a good thing that presidents met in November.”
	There is some movement. This week, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group have spoken of their hope for moving forward on this issue, particularly because of the additional truce that was agreed before the winter games in Sochi.
	Human rights issues in Azerbaijan are probably not the subject of this debate, but I am looking to get some movement to allow some peace to return to a deeply troubled part of the world. This may be commonplace and obvious, and it may almost be otiose for me to say it, but it is one of the great tragedies that some of the most beautiful parts of the world are the places that are most troubled. One thinks of parts of central Africa, East Timor, and so many countries of great heart-stopping beauty. Anyone who has been to Nagorno-Karabakh—as I know many Members of the House have—will never
	forget those great sweeping, soaring mountains, those deep, eye-stretching valleys, and the churches going back nearly 2,000 years, with distinctive Armenian crosses everywhere one looks. We need to do something to bring back that peace.
	In addition, we are approaching the anniversary of the great Armenian genocide of 1915. If ever there was a time when this House could look to Armenia with support, friendship and solidarity, it is as we approach this anniversary. The Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) is not in the Chamber, but I notified him that I was likely to mention his name. Every time we have discussed the Armenian genocide and the current situation, he has chosen to use comments such as “the so-called genocide” and say how he disapproves of any democratic opposition in Azerbaijan. He never misses an opportunity to defend President Aliyev. That is a shame, because I would have thought that if there is one thing the House can agree on it is that a genocide of the most horrendous proportions did take place in Anatolia, Van and what was then called western Armenia. The 1915 genocide was the third genocide and was particularly horrendous. Would it not be a good thing if we were to lend our support, put our shoulder to the wheel, and try to move Minsk forward in time for the commemorations of this appalling genocide?
	Some would say, “Can we not put this matter behind us?” I am not Armenian and I am not Azeri. I do not have a drop of blood of either of those nations in my veins. However, I cannot help but note that even though much of what we talked about this evening appears to be in the past, it is a past that still resonates.
	Many people will know the situation that occurred on 18 February 2004. Extraordinarily, soldiers from Azerbaijan and Armenia were present at a NATO partnership for peace activity in Budapest. One Azerbaijani soldier, Ramil Safarov, decided to buy an axe and take the head off an Armenian soldier, Gurgen Markarian. This happened in Hungary in 2004. This is not ancient history; this is recent history. At the time, the Azerbaijan human rights commissioner said that Safarov must become an example of patriotism for Azerbaijani youth and the National Democratic party awarded him the man of the year award in 2005. When the Hungarians released Ramil Safarov, he returned to Azerbaijan to be promoted to the rank of major. He received eight years back pay and was given accommodation. It is that raw and it is that recent. My point is that these emotions simply cannot be allowed to fester. When we have a feeling of animosity between two peoples that leads to a fellow soldier on a NATO joint exercise decapitating another soldier, that is something intensely felt and we must be able to somehow push that forward and improve the situation.
	The British Government cannot demand action, but what we can do is to show our concern. I know the Minister and respect him, as do most in the House. We have an opportunity to put down a marker: to say it was an awful, bloody and terrible war, but that it finished 20 years ago. Let us finally end this awful conflict, and allow two nations to emerge into the sunshine to live in peace. Then we can talk about human rights, but at least let us talk without the sound of gunfire, without the smell of cordite and without the chill anticipation of death.

Mark Simmonds: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on securing the debate and on the extremely articulate, comprehensive and passionate way in which he set out his case. He combined a detailed understanding of the history with an extreme passion for trying to find a satisfactory lasting resolution to this long-standing conflict in the south Caucasus region. He, and all Members of this House, will be extremely concerned with the lack of progress in resolving this conflict. This is not just an issue for Members of this House, but for many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as well as those people living in the south Caucasus region.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the fact that the conflict dates back to before world war one. Its causes are very deep-rooted. The conflict that broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh as the Soviet Union disintegrated created not only the problems to which he alluded but hundreds of thousands of refugees. For many of those refugees, the situation either has not improved or has improved little since then. The conflict continues to hamper development in both Armenia and Azerbaijan and cause further instability in the already troubled region of the south Caucasus.
	It goes without saying that finding a lasting solution will be vital in alleviating the suffering still felt in the region. I am extremely grateful for the work being done by the hon. Gentleman and other Members of both Houses to raise awareness of that tragic conflict. Of course, it does not need to be said that we are not much further on than we were 20 years ago, and we are almost at that 20th anniversary.
	The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “a frozen conflict”. Let me gently say that I think that that is misleading. As he rightly pointed out, fighting continues to this day. The UK is concerned by the ongoing breach of the ceasefire along the line of contact as well as along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. There were reports of increasing numbers of ceasefire violations in January and early February, as he rightly mentioned. We were pleased that the Presidents of both countries committed to a truce during the winter Olympics. While fighting continues, there is always a danger of escalation, whether that is deliberate or not, and we urge both sides to exercise restraint and avoid provocation.
	The UK strongly supports the work of the co-chairs of the Minsk group-led peace process and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. We also recognise the frustration that he rightly articulated about the fact that progress has been slow and that it feels as though we are no closer to a resolution than we were 20 years ago. However, at last year’s G8 summit in Lough Erne the three co-chairs primarily made the point that it was for the Armenian and Azerbaijani Governments to take ownership of the peace process. It is their conflict and they must take responsibility to resolve it. Of course, the co-chairs work hard to facilitate progress and we and the international community stand ready to provide further support when the time is right.
	The UK is concerned that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is creating a situation in which a peace agreement would be acceptable to their populations. A generation of people from both countries now exists
	that has had no contact with anyone from the other country. That is all the more regrettable given that throughout much of the region’s history the two communities resided peacefully alongside each other, as they still do in neighbouring Georgia. Armenians and Azerbaijanis living in isolation goes against that trend and we need collectively to address that.
	The perceptions that many citizens of both countries have of their close neighbour are now founded on negative stereotypes and aggressive rhetoric. Neither Government have done enough to counter that image and, at times, they have actively encouraged those perceptions. The longer the conflict continues and the longer both Governments shy from preparing their populations for peace, the greater the loss of life will be for both sides and the more difficult it will be to find a lasting solution to the conflict. The UK Government do not underestimate the fact that finding peace will involve difficult decisions and compromises. Despite the difficulties, we are committed to doing everything we can to foster efforts to find a resolution to the conflict.
	We continue to encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to follow the Madrid principles, to exercise restraint, to avoid provocation and to redouble efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement based on the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force, territorial integrity and the people’s right to self-determination.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) rightly mentioned the Foreign Secretary’s discussions, and I can assure her, the hon. Member for Ealing North and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has a particular passion for the plight of Christians everywhere in the world, that the Foreign Secretary raised the importance of human rights and Nagorno-Karabakh when he met President Aliyev. He also raised those issues with Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian last May. We regularly speak and raise these important issues with representatives of both Governments at all levels.
	The UK has invested more than £1.5 million over the last three years funding projects that attempt to break down walls and develop an understanding between the communities affected by the conflict. However, the leaders of both sides must play their part, and we consistently urge Armenia and Azerbaijan to work with the Minsk group to reduce tensions and create an environment conducive to a peaceful, long-lasting settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the Prime Minister’s special trade envoy to Azerbaijan, was right that a peaceful solution will be beneficial, in economic and trade terms, to Azerbaijan, Armenia and the whole of the south Caucasus. We feel that is a way for the UK to play a significant part in engagement and reducing tensions, and we specifically encouraged the meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which happened last November, after almost two years, and we hope that further meetings between them will take place soon.
	These two countries occupy a pivotal geographical position just east of the EU and are an important part of the EU’s wider neighbourhood, and the EU works with them through the Eastern Partnership. Both have huge potential, vibrant, dynamic populations and geostrategic locations, situated, as they are, between Europe and Asia, with Russia to the north and the Gulf states to the south. The south Caucasus can be a crossroads for trade, transport and energy, linking China, central Asia, the Caspian sea, Turkey, Europe and the middle east. Given that potential, it is hugely disappointing that this conflict remains unresolved, not least as we approach the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire agreement this May. The UK, as a friend of both countries, will continue to support all efforts to resolve this protracted conflict. These efforts are crucial to helping both countries and the broader south Caucasus region reap the substantial rewards and benefits that lasting peace and stability will bring.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.